Report | Ramola D | April 6, 2023
Lately there seem to be have been all sorts of surfacing of the need for Neuro Ethics and Neuro Rights, including in mainstream coverage of Duke University law and philosophy professor Nita Farahany’s new book “Battle for Your Brain” and a new interview with her and Antonio Regalado, senior biomedicine editor at MIT Technology Review by Greater Boston News’ Sue O’Connell.
One of the more startling admissions made here by researchers and elite-academe media obviously long aware of the unethical and covert use of people in brain experiments and non-lethal weapon testing operations–long reported here at this site–is that Consent of those ab/used in experimental brain research is still in question (or that the question of Lack of Consent is making some researchers squirm now).
“…(Regarding) the technology that we’re talking about for implanted electrodes used by people who are suffering from neurodegenerative disorders or who’ve lost their ability to communicate–the primary ethical issues are around safety and efficacy and ensuring the autonomy of the individuals on whom these are being researched are able to provide full consent — there are complex questions with deep brain stimulation about continuity of self, and what that means for a person with depression…”
–Dr. Nita Farahany, JD, MA, PhD
False psychiatric labels to wrongfully label people mentally ill–or depressed, or paranoid, or bipolar, or schizophrenic–have as we know long been used to inhumanely and unethically experiment on those also wrongfully labeled “targeted individuals” (who start out being wrongfully watchlisted by the Security Surveillance apparatus often as “terrorists” or “non-investigative subjects” as the ACLU has exposed or “troublemakers” by local community mavens who moonlight as FBI informants keen to disappear school moms with a voice)–a serious issue which needs to be publicly addressed by everyone in Medicine, Psychiatry, and Psychology, as indeed everyone in the world aware of identical abuse conducted under MK ULTRA or Soviet/Communist regimes. (Covered previously here and here, for instance.)
Neurotechnologies and EMF technologies being known in military and intelligence circles to invoke the symptoms of mental illnesses (like depression), neurodegenerative disorders, or DSM-labeled “disorders” has been publicly surfaced by numerous whistleblowers, scientists, and researchers over the years, including recently Dr. James Giordano, Dr. Charles Morgan, and Debra D. Schnelle at a Biodefense conference, and reported here earlier:
Non-consensual brain experimentation as also non-consensual energy-weapon-experimentation/testing/operation is a subject therefore which cannot be discussed openly without discussing wrongful mental-illness attribution.
Everyday Brain Sensors and Everyday Brain Hijacking via Bluetooth, Nanotech, Smart Tech: Neuralink to Meta to Microsoft to Everyone else
Of equal concern currently to pretty much everyone in the world is the casual mention of “everyday brain sensors” and the vulnerability of the human brain to non-consensual nano and micro implants, “brainjacking” (covert brain hacking), the “commodification of data”–your brain data, that is, AKA your most private thoughts, fleeting or entrenched, your prejudices and passions, desires and dreads, in addition to your language skills, your Math skills, your ability to think logically, compute clearly, summarize, connect, disengage, associate, cognize, remember, recognize, compose, write, read, dance, sing, speak, express yourself verbally or vocally, do art, fix cars, etc–and how indeed (with the right nanotech humming along inside your neurons maybe) you can be Bluetoothed just as easily as your iPhone or Thinkpad, Epsilon’d, dumbed-down, or disappeared.
Think of what this could do to y/our children’s brains–and perhaps has been for a while: Brain Entrainment, Mind Hiving, Neuro Surveillance: In Groups, At Work, Already? | Questions re. Brain Autonomy at Davos
Tech companies, we are told, are now flourishing and predating on human brains, coming up with different “consumer-facing” tech which really seeks to normalize brain-computer-interfaces or microchips as sensors to be secreted into earbuds and headphones and other such–while also normalizing other forms of invasive brain surveillance, already in operation in police/criminal justice as crowd control tech and limited-effect tech.
Suggesting, with Antonio Relegado, that Neuralink and Elon Musk have brought “attention to the field,” Nita Farahany says that “brain computer interface companies whether it’s implanted neurotechnology companies or the huge number of players that have started to introduce everyday brain sensors it’s really stimulated all of the major tech companies, all of the brain computer interface companies to rapidly start to think about consumer-facing technologies which is why you have Meta investing in a watch that is supposed to serve as a neural interface to augmented reality and you have Snap buying a major neurotech company called Next Minds in order to integrate into its products and you have Microsoft and Apple all looking at developing neural interface for everyone. I think it’s the big untapped Market in so many ways –right–people are used to quantifying every other aspect of their bodies and of their health but we even know virtually nothing about our own brains so I think the ‘Musk effect’ has led to a huge amount of funding and a race to be the first to develop a broad scale kind of killer app for everyone”: Is this a matter-of-fact surveying of an already too-advanced foray into brain invasion for all humanity or a seeking to normalize such as perfectly okay?
Neuro Rights or Human Rights? Brains to Regulate or Brains to Keep Private?
Neuro rights, neuro privacy, cognitive liberty: these are terms which have been conceived and surfaced for quite some time now, but who is laying claim to these concepts, why are “terms of service” being mentioned and should this be a legal issue, a moral issue, an ethical issue, or a concerted cause for alarm and massive human rights alert for all alive today on all these counts?
(“Terms of service” is a phrase used by Nita Farahany in a Guardian interview. “There are profound risks from both the commodification of the data but also what it means to have your brain activity monitored by others and what that does to freedom of thought. The technology is at an inflection point: use is ascending steeply but it is not yet mainstream. We have a moment, before the terms of service are set by others, where we can have a voice in how it is used and deployed in society.”)
Non-Consenting “Subjects” of Classified or Hidden Military/Intelligence Technologies Have Long Exposed Neurotechnology & DEW Abuse
Mind reading, replacement of your inner voice, soul-jacking–essentially transforming your personality via MK ULTRA style “crime prevention” neuro surveillance seeking to provoke or hypnotize people into crime-creation–mind-control via remote EMF tech, overwhelming synthetic telepathy, and the tracking and transforming of your mental activity or neurological state have long been reported by those covertly targeted with military and Intelligence neurotechnologies, disclosed by DOD/CIA/Navy/Army whistleblowers and scientists, and increasingly exposed now as being rolled out, including in schools and crowd control situations as post-COVID reports from China and Europe and the US and Australia demonstrate.
A significant public exposure of unlawful targeting of Americans and abuse in non-consensual brain and energy bio-effects/bio-behavioral research occurred in 2011 and 2012 with the Presidential Bioethical Commission hearings, as also with the SACHRP comments during the Common Rule revision in 2015/16 when Intelligence and Criminal Justice agencies were apparently given a free pass to experiment on civilians without any of the human rights protections the Common Rule (already watered-down version of the Nuremberg Code) offered.
This was covered here earlier:
Neuroethics as a means to address such rampant abuses has long been discussed on my panels and podcasts, including in such memorable interviews as with neuro rights activist Shad Budge, Columbia Neuroscience professor Dr. Rafael Yuste who brought Neuro Rights to Chile, the Invasive Neurotech, True Neuro Ethics panels, and the recent Neurotech/DEW Tech online conferences I hosted in 2021 and 2022.
It should be noted also that everyone I have interviewed or worked with over the years in relation to their exposure or/and disclosure of these neurotechnology and DEW abuses has contributed vastly to the exposing of these crimes against humanity and brought forward the entire public discourse on neuro ethics, bio ethics, and neuro rights, which all academics, private parties and media now tentatively touching these subjects need to consult. (As indeed they need to consult also the vast body of literature from numerous researchers and writers who have addressed these matters, including Cheryl Welsh, Paul Baird, Dr. Nick Begich, Dr. Rauni Kilde, Gloria Naylor, Mark Rich, Dr. John Hall, Mary Gregory, and others.)
The fact remains that these disclosures from the field cannot be overlooked in any intellectual reportage or review of technology use in this area, and a serious overhauling of the entire fields of surveillance, psychiatry, brain research–whether in public, private, or academic sectors–is long overdue.
Consent cannot be presumed for the great numbers of unwitting, involuntary, non-consenting people who have come forward in many ways to report the great harms on their persons inflicted by remote neurotechnologies and energy technologies–implicating military, intelligence, corporate, and academic research, classified or not–even by so-called neuroethicists fraudulently held up by corporate media and academe. Nita Farahany, interestingly, was a member of President Obama’s Bioethical Commission headed by Amy Gutmann in 2011 and 2012 which heard the testimonials of numerous Americans exposing these crimes (as also, curiously, was Christine Grady, wife of Anthony Fauci).
The entire industry of neural interfaces, augmented reality, prosthetics, BCI-tech, nanotech, optical imaging tech and so on needs to come under much closer scrutiny than it has currently, always in light of the vast public disclosure of crimes against humanity in such research made by many many reporters of these crimes, often dismissed, wrongfully, as a cadre of mentally ill “targeted individuals.”
Inevitably also, the abuses of animals, particularly primates, in neurotechnology and BCI (brain computer interface) research, as exposed last year in the case of the Neuralink-funded use of baby monkeys at UC Davis–reported here and questioned further by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine–must be further scrutinized in light of harms to humanity implicit in all such research.
A sampling of panels below:
