RE nanobots: no doubt you've heard of the book "Prey" by Michael Crichton. No worries if you haven't read it - I've read it enough for both of us. Anyway, Charlie Rose interviewed him about the book in 2002. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LB1lDM28Ro
Nothing earthshaking, but glean from it what you will from a disinterested visionary. (Spoiler: the host is a bore, but redeems himself somewhat by asking a halfway useful question or two). Not a must see but whatever.
As you point out, there seems to be a lot of speculation and very little actual information about that very feasible technology. Isn't that a bit curious in itself? Now you have two paradigms about the fact blackout: 1) there are little or no facts and 2) there are facts you aren't allowed to know. Which is more likely?
And finally, this. These things may not exist now in some form (slim chance, imho), but it's highly likely that they will.
If our clandestine agencies have nanos that are decades ahead of what we see today, why are Ray Kurzweil and Klaus Schwab deteriorating before our eyes?
I held off on any comment on this article because the comments were largely hijacked by one of the participants from the symposium.
Yesterday, El Gato Malo put out a substack article that I thought addresses what you had to contend with quite well: "people who have ideas and are willing to assess and modify them as opposed to the cadres of people who ARE their ideas and thus take any disagreement as an assault upon their personal identity. That is a very important distinction, and “people who are their ideas” has become far too prevalent a pathology in the US these days.
El Gato Malo! I have neglected him lately. Awesome.
You know, Robbie, the way I see it is if I take shots at someone, I can expect them to get big mad. It's mischievous, but it also lets me see if they are concerned about facts or their own wee egos.
Way to go Joe, now you know why woke colleges exist. That is the extent of the professors knowledge, pretend we are smart and we will over charge you for the education you didn't get. And those students profess that mutilating themselves is a cure for their own stupidity. It, they, them are crazy!
I am on the fence. I just hate ascribing omnipotence to the psychopaths at the levers of power so for the moment I am going to believe I am not over run with nano bots.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to engage with our symposium and for writing a review.
There appears to be little hope of us agreeing about militarized bionanotechnology, despite the decades of relevant documentation discussed in the symposium. I infer that the primary purpose of the review is to close down any suggestion of classified military technology being deployed against the public.
As for the "harebrained theory that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by 'directed free-energy technology'—a.k.a. space lasers," I encourage readers to consult my Defence of Judy Wood: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce, which, among other things, rejects the "space laser" slur and demonstrates why Wood's work remains the most comprehensive, and important, forensic analysis of the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Joe, maybe when you read the following articles and go back to the formation of the "Scholars for 9/11 truth" you will be able to see te gaslighting by the government approved, controlled opposition traitors, masquerading as the 9/11 "truth" movement....
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
I was pretty sure you were disagreeing with the presenters and their material and suggesting people read other material that does not agree with their symposium. Please clarify what "other material" you are referring too. Thank you.
Even though Broudy did not mention nanobots in the symposium, you frame his contribution in those terms, ignoring his expert reply to the Ulrich critique which you cite (https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/109/331), before accusing him of “flattening the problems of our era to some World Economic Forum-centered conspiracy” – with rhetorical hints of “flat Earth” and “conspiracy theory” (two classic smears).
You use Johnson’s presentation on military transhumanism as a pretext for accusing us of “chas[ing] invisible Easter Bunnies down a rabbit hole to nowhere” and discrediting “real resistance,” while resorting to a cheap propaganda shot: “Don’t ya’ll worry about no mRNAs in them shots. It’s the nanner bots that’ll get’che!!” You even attempt to gaslight Johnson, who has a PhD on the psychological processes involved in manipulating reality-perception, by claiming that the nanobot narrative is all “in your head.”
Meanwhile, you presume to know more than Harvard science historian Peter Galison about the relative volume of classified research. Despite the abundant evidence of military intelligence literature cited in Johnson’s presentation, you naively endorse the health narrative that “two primary objectives of nanotech are to cure disease and reverse aging.” You refer to “military propagandists” who are “justifying their paychecks” despite producing “next to nothing,” apparently blind to the obvious likelihood that massive amounts of DoD funding over at least two decades – which you acknowledge shows “intent” – will produce tangible results.
As for my presentation, which I note is left until last despite coming first in the running order, and is the only presentation for which images are not presented, it remains basically unchallenged, minus an oblique reference to “chemtrail-borne nanos.” Instead, you choose to focus attention on the closing roundtable and my Defence of Judy Wood (https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce), which was praised by Catherine Austin Fitts.
Here, again, you resort to propagandistic idiocies and use of scare quotes intended to make Wood’s research appear ridiculous (indeed “absurd”). For example: “Is the ultimate objective for ‘the people’ to get their hands on this ‘free-energy technology’ so we can, I dunno, inject ourselves with life-extension serum or build space communes on Mars?”
Or again: “If top secret projects really are ‘twenty years ahead of anything we see today,’ there would be an unknown continent where flying cars buzz around AI-controlled cities running on cold fusion generators.” This is utter nonsense when one considers that the whole point of classified military technology is to oppress the population.
You conclude: “I am not arguing that the vaxxbot theories floated by Johnson, Broudy, and Hughes are untrue. I am saying I don’t believe them.” This reminds me of how mainstream newspaper articles hit you with a misleading headline and misleading content for most of an article, only to come clean towards the end so that they cannot be sued. You are not actually claiming that anything we said is false. You are merely proffering subjective opinion, which really doesn’t count for very much, especially when measured against the massive volume of evidence we presented.
Therefore, I stand by my previous comments. The primary purpose of your review is to close down any suggestion of classified military technology being deployed against the public. After flattering to deceive in the open stages, in which you place your friendship with Patrick Wood first, the red thread of your critique, regarding Broudy, Johnson, and myself, is classified military technology and a propagandistic attempt to ridicule it, which is consistent with the Camp 2 platform for which you work.
I hope that is "careful" enough for you. If you delete this comment, I will simply repost this entire exchange on my Substack.
I've been tracking the technology myself, extensively. Here's what I know.
-IoB and bionanotechnology are real fields with top scientists conducting extensive research in nano-scale cell monitoring and control technologies. Some of the leading figures in this area include Charles Lieber, Ian Akyildiz, Josep Jornet, Ozgur Akan, Sakhrat Khizroev, Gaurav Sharma, Jacob Robinson, Ehud Gazit, and so on.
-There is extensive involvement (in terms of grant funding) from NIH, DARPA, DTRA, ARPA-H, MITRE, ONR, AFOSR, the Wellcome Trust/Wellcome Leap, IEEE, et cetera.
-Graphene-based plasmonic nanoantennas that make use of localized surface plasmon resonance are a real concept, and they can capture THz radiation despite being much smaller than the wavelength of said radiation.
-IoB researchers have done studies into the path loss of THz radiation in the human body, to determine how tightly nanorelays need to be spaced. THz radiation is readily absorbed by water molecules and has a very limited range in air, something like thirty feet. In the body, this is more like millimeters. This is a huge engineering limitation.
-DARPA's N3 program (which may have been folded into something called NSIA), involved placing nanotransducers in brain tissue and then hitting them with wireless energy to form a wireless BCI. The goal is to avoid having a craniotomy (unlike Neuralink, which involves cutting away a chunk of the skull, resecting the dura, threading electrodes into the brain, and situating the implant to replace the removed piece of skull), because DARPA (quite rightly, I might add) believe that this is too invasive and risky to do to healthy people on a regular basis. This tech has, to my knowledge, been successfully tested on fruit flies. Rice University, for their MOANA program (their entrant for N3) injected nanotransducers into fly neurons and got their wings to open when the transducers were activated by an electromagnetic coil. It's a fascinating project, however, doing this in a large, high-cross-section mammalian brain and localizing that energy in a small spatial area is a very tall order, in terms of engineering.
-With tech like nanotransducers, magnetogenetics, optogenetics, chemogenetics, et cetera, the goal is not to introduce "nanobots" in to the brain, but to make neurons responsive to wireless signals by allowing for remote opening of ion channels in the cell wall, using various approaches, such as nanoparticles, DREADDs, and so on. These techniques all, generally, accomplish the same thing, by various different means. Both magnetogenetic and nanotransducer approaches, for instance, open TRPV ion channels and admit calcium into neurons, changing their membrane potential.
-This same tech is dual-use and could be used not just for neurological debilitation, but also, for remote assassination (say, by remotely depolarizing neurons that control heart rhythm), so I tend to take any such claims very, very seriously.
-Figures like James Giordano speak as if a neurowarfare paradigm is being normalized by military brass and think tanks, which, in light of IoB tech development, is very, very concerning, because it implies that the intention for this technology is to use it to quell dissent or domestic unrest, to make people passive and docile in the face of resource shortages and managed reductions in living standards. Armin Krishnan's textbook on neurowarfare explicitly mentions this. Would you trust nosy, totalitarian technocrats like SJ Terp, Renee DiResta and the rest of the COGSEC mafia to use neurowarfare tech to delete undesirable thoughts from people's heads? Certainly not.
-There is also ongoing research into reservoir computing, brainoware, using living brains to run AI like a brain botnet, and so on. See the research by Ken Mackie, et al. (if they can do this with organoids, they can do it with people).
Now, here are the caveats:
-There is no solid proof that any of the vaccines contain anything like this. Many of the nanoparticles described in white papers are much, much smaller than optical microscopes can image, and yet, researchers are claiming to have spotted "nanotechnology" in vaccines by looking at unexplained crystals under less than 400x magnification (cholesterol and salts, more like). You would need orders of magnitude more magnification than that (ideally, a dried and prepared sample under SEM/TEM microscopy) to see anything like an N3 nanotransducer, which is approximately 20 nanometers in size, much smaller than the wavelength of visible light, and, in fact, smaller than a virus.
-Many of the technologies in question are in a very primitive state, too primitive to actually use in humans, unless you just wanted to inject people with a bunch of junk and see how they react to it toxicologically. The biggest problems are the hard, physical limitations of localizing and controlling wireless signals with current wireless infrastructure. The general goal with IoB is to implant smart dust in people's bodies and power it up with wireless energy so you don't need batteries, but the actual infrastructure (in terms of suitable source antennas that operate in the correct frequency range, with the correct precision, and very little spacing between them) to do this doesn't exist. Yet. They want it for 6G and 7G, but 5G networks cannot do it. This is something that will likely go from being in a white paper to being semi-viable for use in humans in approximately 5 to 15 years.
I have a bit of a compilation of papers that I've put together, which should serve as a primer on the tech. I'm sure you've seen a bunch of these:
My opinion is that this stuff deserves concerted, heavy-duty investigation and needs to be surfaced and brought into the public view so that there's a wider debate about the technology, which will need to be regulated preemptively to prevent abuse. However, claims that the tech is already in the vaccines should be treated with skepticism, because they generally lack scientific rigor; many of these studies are basically well-poisoning and do nothing but discredit a serious investigation into IoB/IoE tech.
I'm not saying that examining the contents of vaccine vials is a waste of time. Kevin McKernan's research shows that it's most definitely worthwhile, especially when you find tons of contaminants in them, well beyond cGMP standards. However, if you want to prove that IoB nanotech has surreptitiously been placed in the vaccines, you need more scientific rigor, more advanced equipment, and more extensive studies. It's not enough to look at mystery crystals under relatively low magnification and declare that they're nanotech. That's frankly quite stupid.
DearJoe I would like to suggest that you mightinteriewme, or participate in the Green Liberty Convention I October. I do not have the technical background but have addressed these issues in a systematic manner, and without falling back on a commitment to "conservative" values or other conditions for being part of the public discourse. Moreover this was part of my campaign in 2020 and 2024.
RE nanobots: no doubt you've heard of the book "Prey" by Michael Crichton. No worries if you haven't read it - I've read it enough for both of us. Anyway, Charlie Rose interviewed him about the book in 2002. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LB1lDM28Ro
Nothing earthshaking, but glean from it what you will from a disinterested visionary. (Spoiler: the host is a bore, but redeems himself somewhat by asking a halfway useful question or two). Not a must see but whatever.
As you point out, there seems to be a lot of speculation and very little actual information about that very feasible technology. Isn't that a bit curious in itself? Now you have two paradigms about the fact blackout: 1) there are little or no facts and 2) there are facts you aren't allowed to know. Which is more likely?
And finally, this. These things may not exist now in some form (slim chance, imho), but it's highly likely that they will.
I agree on all points. And I appreciate you reminding me to read "Prey." I really respect Crichton.
Keeping an open mind and an eye peeled.
Be sure to read it before it becomes passe. But you won't get much sleep.
PS If self-replicating nanobots are still just a psyop I think exploding pagers might be, too. Am I wrong?
Wait ... I misread you before. Sorry.
Nah, I think they got to those pagers in the supply chain and blew their balls off. It's very warped.
Nah, I think you were more right before (as of this writing).
[edit] ok maybe since we're talking about Mossad. But still...
If our clandestine agencies have nanos that are decades ahead of what we see today, why are Ray Kurzweil and Klaus Schwab deteriorating before our eyes?
😂🤣😅🤪
for the same reason they forbid the chief scientist at BioNtech from taking the covid jab.
I held off on any comment on this article because the comments were largely hijacked by one of the participants from the symposium.
Yesterday, El Gato Malo put out a substack article that I thought addresses what you had to contend with quite well: "people who have ideas and are willing to assess and modify them as opposed to the cadres of people who ARE their ideas and thus take any disagreement as an assault upon their personal identity. That is a very important distinction, and “people who are their ideas” has become far too prevalent a pathology in the US these days.
Link: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/having-ideas-vs-being-ideas
El Gato Malo! I have neglected him lately. Awesome.
You know, Robbie, the way I see it is if I take shots at someone, I can expect them to get big mad. It's mischievous, but it also lets me see if they are concerned about facts or their own wee egos.
"Space lasers" Lol
Way to go Joe, now you know why woke colleges exist. That is the extent of the professors knowledge, pretend we are smart and we will over charge you for the education you didn't get. And those students profess that mutilating themselves is a cure for their own stupidity. It, they, them are crazy!
As the lyrics suggest.
Machines have no conscious
And repeated into the Outro.
End of Line
NM156
https://youtu.be/ORYeVuKYUrI
Lisa Johnson took Jason Bermas NASA: Bushnell presentation a step forward . A+++
IF anything its the absolute primer for normies in the war against the robots.
I am on the fence. I just hate ascribing omnipotence to the psychopaths at the levers of power so for the moment I am going to believe I am not over run with nano bots.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to engage with our symposium and for writing a review.
There appears to be little hope of us agreeing about militarized bionanotechnology, despite the decades of relevant documentation discussed in the symposium. I infer that the primary purpose of the review is to close down any suggestion of classified military technology being deployed against the public.
As for the "harebrained theory that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by 'directed free-energy technology'—a.k.a. space lasers," I encourage readers to consult my Defence of Judy Wood: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce, which, among other things, rejects the "space laser" slur and demonstrates why Wood's work remains the most comprehensive, and important, forensic analysis of the destruction of the Twin Towers.
"I infer that the primary purpose of the review is to close down any suggestion of classified military technology being deployed against the public."
Yes, that's why I encouraged readers to look at your work carefully.
I infer you are not reading carefully.
Joe, maybe when you read the following articles and go back to the formation of the "Scholars for 9/11 truth" you will be able to see te gaslighting by the government approved, controlled opposition traitors, masquerading as the 9/11 "truth" movement....
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
Is the 9/11 "truth" movement a distraction movement?
What happens if you ask TRUTH questions?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/questions-for-the-911-truther-talking
Or maybe I am?
I, too, hope that readers look carefully at my Defence of Judy Wood, as well as the rest of my work, and decide for themselves.
If you were reading carefully, you wouldn't suggest I am trying to close down the conversation.
Which leads me to conclude you didn't read me carefully, and to suspect you don't read other material carefully.
Which dissuades me from taking you seriously.
So we're back to where we started before you chimed in.
Good job.
I was pretty sure you were disagreeing with the presenters and their material and suggesting people read other material that does not agree with their symposium. Please clarify what "other material" you are referring too. Thank you.
It is very clear from what I wrote and the multiple links provided to the symposium that I encourage people to look at it for themselves.
The "other material" refers to any info other than my article, which was apparently ignored.
Even though Broudy did not mention nanobots in the symposium, you frame his contribution in those terms, ignoring his expert reply to the Ulrich critique which you cite (https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/109/331), before accusing him of “flattening the problems of our era to some World Economic Forum-centered conspiracy” – with rhetorical hints of “flat Earth” and “conspiracy theory” (two classic smears).
You use Johnson’s presentation on military transhumanism as a pretext for accusing us of “chas[ing] invisible Easter Bunnies down a rabbit hole to nowhere” and discrediting “real resistance,” while resorting to a cheap propaganda shot: “Don’t ya’ll worry about no mRNAs in them shots. It’s the nanner bots that’ll get’che!!” You even attempt to gaslight Johnson, who has a PhD on the psychological processes involved in manipulating reality-perception, by claiming that the nanobot narrative is all “in your head.”
Meanwhile, you presume to know more than Harvard science historian Peter Galison about the relative volume of classified research. Despite the abundant evidence of military intelligence literature cited in Johnson’s presentation, you naively endorse the health narrative that “two primary objectives of nanotech are to cure disease and reverse aging.” You refer to “military propagandists” who are “justifying their paychecks” despite producing “next to nothing,” apparently blind to the obvious likelihood that massive amounts of DoD funding over at least two decades – which you acknowledge shows “intent” – will produce tangible results.
As for my presentation, which I note is left until last despite coming first in the running order, and is the only presentation for which images are not presented, it remains basically unchallenged, minus an oblique reference to “chemtrail-borne nanos.” Instead, you choose to focus attention on the closing roundtable and my Defence of Judy Wood (https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce), which was praised by Catherine Austin Fitts.
Here, again, you resort to propagandistic idiocies and use of scare quotes intended to make Wood’s research appear ridiculous (indeed “absurd”). For example: “Is the ultimate objective for ‘the people’ to get their hands on this ‘free-energy technology’ so we can, I dunno, inject ourselves with life-extension serum or build space communes on Mars?”
Or again: “If top secret projects really are ‘twenty years ahead of anything we see today,’ there would be an unknown continent where flying cars buzz around AI-controlled cities running on cold fusion generators.” This is utter nonsense when one considers that the whole point of classified military technology is to oppress the population.
You conclude: “I am not arguing that the vaxxbot theories floated by Johnson, Broudy, and Hughes are untrue. I am saying I don’t believe them.” This reminds me of how mainstream newspaper articles hit you with a misleading headline and misleading content for most of an article, only to come clean towards the end so that they cannot be sued. You are not actually claiming that anything we said is false. You are merely proffering subjective opinion, which really doesn’t count for very much, especially when measured against the massive volume of evidence we presented.
Therefore, I stand by my previous comments. The primary purpose of your review is to close down any suggestion of classified military technology being deployed against the public. After flattering to deceive in the open stages, in which you place your friendship with Patrick Wood first, the red thread of your critique, regarding Broudy, Johnson, and myself, is classified military technology and a propagandistic attempt to ridicule it, which is consistent with the Camp 2 platform for which you work.
I hope that is "careful" enough for you. If you delete this comment, I will simply repost this entire exchange on my Substack.
I am not going to delete your comment.
You have all the rope in the world here.
No one is trying to silence you.
I would prefer to ignore you, but here we are, together, on the internet.
It is a real pleasure.
You come over as quite disingenuous and incapable of moving past the following issues most people have pertaining to 9/11....
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11;
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
Psychology of resistance to truth about 9/11
An email discussion with Fran Shur & Marti Hopper, psychologists
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/psychology-of-resistance-to-truth
9/11 Truth Suppression Timeline
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - Vladimir Lenin
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/911-truth-suppression-timeline
Is the 9/11 "truth" movement a distraction movement?
What happens if you ask TRUTH questions?
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/questions-for-the-911-truther-talking
"rope" - implying (intellectual) suicide. Hard to see "pleasure" of any kind.
You need to understand that your loquacious, basically pointless response is why I don't take you people seriously.
You are basically crying in public.
I am not shutting your clickbait conversation down. Fuck, I literally sent you more clicks.
So stop whining, dude.
I don't buy your extraordinary claims. It's as simple as that.
"You people"? Where have I heard that before?
"crying," "whining," "clickbait."
Is that really the extent of your argument? Mere propaganda terms? Nothing of intellectual substance?
No one cares whether or not you "buy" my claims. All that matters is the truth.
I've been tracking the technology myself, extensively. Here's what I know.
-IoB and bionanotechnology are real fields with top scientists conducting extensive research in nano-scale cell monitoring and control technologies. Some of the leading figures in this area include Charles Lieber, Ian Akyildiz, Josep Jornet, Ozgur Akan, Sakhrat Khizroev, Gaurav Sharma, Jacob Robinson, Ehud Gazit, and so on.
-There is extensive involvement (in terms of grant funding) from NIH, DARPA, DTRA, ARPA-H, MITRE, ONR, AFOSR, the Wellcome Trust/Wellcome Leap, IEEE, et cetera.
-Graphene-based plasmonic nanoantennas that make use of localized surface plasmon resonance are a real concept, and they can capture THz radiation despite being much smaller than the wavelength of said radiation.
-IoB researchers have done studies into the path loss of THz radiation in the human body, to determine how tightly nanorelays need to be spaced. THz radiation is readily absorbed by water molecules and has a very limited range in air, something like thirty feet. In the body, this is more like millimeters. This is a huge engineering limitation.
-DARPA's N3 program (which may have been folded into something called NSIA), involved placing nanotransducers in brain tissue and then hitting them with wireless energy to form a wireless BCI. The goal is to avoid having a craniotomy (unlike Neuralink, which involves cutting away a chunk of the skull, resecting the dura, threading electrodes into the brain, and situating the implant to replace the removed piece of skull), because DARPA (quite rightly, I might add) believe that this is too invasive and risky to do to healthy people on a regular basis. This tech has, to my knowledge, been successfully tested on fruit flies. Rice University, for their MOANA program (their entrant for N3) injected nanotransducers into fly neurons and got their wings to open when the transducers were activated by an electromagnetic coil. It's a fascinating project, however, doing this in a large, high-cross-section mammalian brain and localizing that energy in a small spatial area is a very tall order, in terms of engineering.
-With tech like nanotransducers, magnetogenetics, optogenetics, chemogenetics, et cetera, the goal is not to introduce "nanobots" in to the brain, but to make neurons responsive to wireless signals by allowing for remote opening of ion channels in the cell wall, using various approaches, such as nanoparticles, DREADDs, and so on. These techniques all, generally, accomplish the same thing, by various different means. Both magnetogenetic and nanotransducer approaches, for instance, open TRPV ion channels and admit calcium into neurons, changing their membrane potential.
-This same tech is dual-use and could be used not just for neurological debilitation, but also, for remote assassination (say, by remotely depolarizing neurons that control heart rhythm), so I tend to take any such claims very, very seriously.
-Figures like James Giordano speak as if a neurowarfare paradigm is being normalized by military brass and think tanks, which, in light of IoB tech development, is very, very concerning, because it implies that the intention for this technology is to use it to quell dissent or domestic unrest, to make people passive and docile in the face of resource shortages and managed reductions in living standards. Armin Krishnan's textbook on neurowarfare explicitly mentions this. Would you trust nosy, totalitarian technocrats like SJ Terp, Renee DiResta and the rest of the COGSEC mafia to use neurowarfare tech to delete undesirable thoughts from people's heads? Certainly not.
-There is also ongoing research into reservoir computing, brainoware, using living brains to run AI like a brain botnet, and so on. See the research by Ken Mackie, et al. (if they can do this with organoids, they can do it with people).
Now, here are the caveats:
-There is no solid proof that any of the vaccines contain anything like this. Many of the nanoparticles described in white papers are much, much smaller than optical microscopes can image, and yet, researchers are claiming to have spotted "nanotechnology" in vaccines by looking at unexplained crystals under less than 400x magnification (cholesterol and salts, more like). You would need orders of magnitude more magnification than that (ideally, a dried and prepared sample under SEM/TEM microscopy) to see anything like an N3 nanotransducer, which is approximately 20 nanometers in size, much smaller than the wavelength of visible light, and, in fact, smaller than a virus.
-Many of the technologies in question are in a very primitive state, too primitive to actually use in humans, unless you just wanted to inject people with a bunch of junk and see how they react to it toxicologically. The biggest problems are the hard, physical limitations of localizing and controlling wireless signals with current wireless infrastructure. The general goal with IoB is to implant smart dust in people's bodies and power it up with wireless energy so you don't need batteries, but the actual infrastructure (in terms of suitable source antennas that operate in the correct frequency range, with the correct precision, and very little spacing between them) to do this doesn't exist. Yet. They want it for 6G and 7G, but 5G networks cannot do it. This is something that will likely go from being in a white paper to being semi-viable for use in humans in approximately 5 to 15 years.
I have a bit of a compilation of papers that I've put together, which should serve as a primer on the tech. I'm sure you've seen a bunch of these:
https://rentry.co/wkah734d
My opinion is that this stuff deserves concerted, heavy-duty investigation and needs to be surfaced and brought into the public view so that there's a wider debate about the technology, which will need to be regulated preemptively to prevent abuse. However, claims that the tech is already in the vaccines should be treated with skepticism, because they generally lack scientific rigor; many of these studies are basically well-poisoning and do nothing but discredit a serious investigation into IoB/IoE tech.
I'm not saying that examining the contents of vaccine vials is a waste of time. Kevin McKernan's research shows that it's most definitely worthwhile, especially when you find tons of contaminants in them, well beyond cGMP standards. However, if you want to prove that IoB nanotech has surreptitiously been placed in the vaccines, you need more scientific rigor, more advanced equipment, and more extensive studies. It's not enough to look at mystery crystals under relatively low magnification and declare that they're nanotech. That's frankly quite stupid.
DearJoe I would like to suggest that you mightinteriewme, or participate in the Green Liberty Convention I October. I do not have the technical background but have addressed these issues in a systematic manner, and without falling back on a commitment to "conservative" values or other conditions for being part of the public discourse. Moreover this was part of my campaign in 2020 and 2024.