The Microchip Agenda

Author Topic: The Microchip Agenda  (Read 867897 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline CANADIAN-guerilla

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
« Reply #80 on: January 25, 2008, 05:02:05 PM »
RFID-enabled tattoos eyed for livestock tracking

why not for people too ?
food shortages and/or near starvation
will be the tactic/strategy used by TPTB to get america's guns

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,093
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: RFID chips are so small now that you need a microscope
« Reply #81 on: January 26, 2008, 08:12:00 PM »

A magnet won't cut it. The RFID chips are actual silicon chips, not any sort of magnetic ... Intentionally disable your passport? Make it not work properly? ... - 41k - Cached - Similar pages

(WO/2006/031531) RFID TAGS WITH EAS DEACTIVATION ABILITYThe RFID and EAS tag of claim 12 wherein when the bias magnet is ... of an alarm is disable; wherein the RFID device is deactivated when the EAS device is ... - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

NO2ID :: View topic - Magnetic fields and RFID chipsWhy are you worrying about trying to permanently disable the RFID chip ? .... Lets say that you do disable the magnets in the biometric passport. ... - 89k - Cached - Similar pages - FAQQ: What do I do if I find an RFID chip? Can I kill or disable it? ... Running a magnet over the chip or using a tape eraser will not affect the chip. ... - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

RFID tags with EAS deactivation ability - US Patent 7109867The RFID and EAS tag of claim 12 wherein when the bias magnet is ... an alarm is enabled and a deactivated state in which activation of an alarm is disable; ... - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

Manually operated switch for enabling and disabling an RFID card ...Manually operated switch for enabling and disabling an RFID card ..... The magnets 770 and 780 are also oriented perpendicular to one another and are spaced ... - 45k - Cached - Similar pages

Gadgets: RFID "Powder" Developed; Time to Buy Lead Pants.Killing the RFID chip with a strong magnet is easy enough.....but how do I disable the nano bots? (I think I picked up a few from the seats at a local ... - 59k - Cached - Similar pages

How to disable your e-passport's RFID chip - EngadgetHow well would retail store tag deactivation magnets work on the RFID units used in the ... but how do you really disable the RFID in the passport? ... - 108k - Cached - Similar pages

Democratic Underground - How to disable a RFID chip:Q: What do I do if I find an RFID chip? Can I kill or disable it? A: You can disable a chip for all practical ... Q: Will a magnet erase an RFID chip? ... - 46k - Cached - Similar pages

Slashdot: Would You Trust RFID-Enabled ATM Cards? : BorkWebSlashdot posted an article on RFID-Enabled ATM Cards by one of its readers, .... how to disable rfid magnets (1) - how can magentic stripe cards get ruined? ... - 36k - Cached - Similar pages

Every lock can be picked. Every tool can be used against the tool maker.  Truth is truth, and justice is justice.  They are more scared of these than we are. 
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline 70983

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,655
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #82 on: January 26, 2008, 11:33:40 PM »
i just wanted to know how to get rid of these chips i hate big brother i hate the New World Order
Ray McBerry for Governor of Georgia in 2010!  Reclaim the sovereignty of the States!

Youtube Channel:

He has many informative videos advocating his candidacy.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
« Reply #83 on: February 01, 2008, 09:57:47 AM »
There is a movie called "The Final Cut" with Robin Williams. People have implants and their entire lives are recorded. Everything they see. Williams character makes an "edit" of their memories for a nice memorial to play at the funeral after they die. The people who are resisting the chip have these crazy tattoos that block the chip from working. This might be another idea to experiment with.
Yes, that movie was a blatant example of predictive programming.  It is exactly the sort of conditioning that they discussed at the Loyola Univeristy meetings on the brain chip, when they said that the brain chip is ready now and all that is required is to condition the public to accept them.  Notice that in the movie the people who protest against brain chips are presented as insensitive idiots, because they throw insults at people who are just about to attend the funeral of a loved one.  Pure propaganda.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #84 on: February 01, 2008, 10:04:59 AM »
Google founder dreams of Google implant in your brain
Body modification - or channel ploy?

By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Wednesday 3rd March 2004 09:12 GMT

Mobile Device Management and Security Body modification is all the rage these days, as any parent with teenage children knows. Pack them off to the school disco, and the next thing you know, they've come back with a fabric of piercings and tattoos that only a supercomputer can decipher.

Our very own Kevin Warwick - or "Captain Cyborg", to regular readers - was just a middling tutor at a Midlands polytechnic before he caught a whiff of this peculiar zeitgest. For the past few years Warwick has staged a succession of publicity stunts in which he "augments" his human self with bits of machinery. His adolescent stunts have been pretty lame so far, but he has been successful in gathering an appreciative following in the international press.

The issue of augmentation, or fusion with technology, is a masturbatory fantasy that we encounter often, especially out here in California. The venerated Extropians are just one of many cults that dream of transcending mortality - and evading the messy social responsibilities to your brother or sister - by launching themselves into a cryogenically-assured future to which only they have the keys.

Enter Larry Page, who by cruel popular caricature is the friendly, goofy half of the partnership that created Google. In the manner of a Bond villain, the brilliant, cold and secretive Russian Sergey calls the shots, while the American nitwit Larry loafs around on colored cushions between Segway rides, and gets to "chill" with with Joi Ito. Lucky Larry!

(Parodies don't work unless they have at least a grain of truth, but we must point out that in real life, Sergey is not so nerveless as his parody suggests, nor Larry so stoopid. However Larry is mesmerized by stupid tech toys, perhaps fatally so, as we shall see.)

Leisure Suit Larry
For a brief and wonderful moment, Larry escaped his minders and 'fessed up his wildest desires to CNET.

"On the more exciting front, you can imagine your brain being augmented by Google. For example you think about something and your cell phone could whisper the answer into your ear," he burbled.

Yes, Larry, that's pretty exciting. But first things first. John Markoff in the New York Times recently unearthed the gem that Google is planning to create a "phone" that directs the user to Google's incomparable archive of weblog trackbacks and payola bracelet placements. Heads rolled at Google HQ after that revelation, although we ought to acquaint Google's remaining sentient executives with their kin from Nike who have also been planning an entry into the commodified phone business with such a similar caper. Neither Nike, nor Amazon has yet to launch such a product.

But commercial considerations aside, why is Google's co-founder so besotted by the idea? Is he genuinely such a cartoon simpleton, or does he simply think that his product is so amazing - and that we're so correspondingly gullible - that we would willingly submit to such a complicated medical operation to make it work. (And, alas, it still requires messy medical science to implant a Google chip in your brain). Can you imagine a car manufacturer touting such a pitch? Where, in the history of commerce, has the promise been so distant from the reality? Car buyers wouldn't stand for this ("just take our Ford implant, sir, and everything will work out...") and neither, we suggest, should you.

The "Internet" promised us so much when it was touted to us ten years ago. The world's body of knowledge would be at our fingertrips.

Now we're being told that we need body modification to make it work. Ten years ago we thought that all we needed was an ISP. Now, all we need is a brain surgeon!

Oh, dear.


Google. Who's looking at you?
It wants to know everything about you. It wants to be your best friend — or your Big Brother. Are your secrets safe with Google?
The Sunday Times
October 21, 2007

John Arlidge


[A]s it prepares to celebrate its 10th birthday, Google has developed serious engine trouble. A series of missteps have left it facing claims that it has gone from a benign project – creating the first free, open-all-hours global library – to the information society’s most determined Big Brother. It stands accused of plotting some sinister link between its computers and us: that it wants, somehow, to plug us into its giant mainframe – as imagined in The Matrix or Terminator.

The crisis began a few months ago when Google’s chief executive, Eric Schmidt, popped up in London and made some extravagant remarks about the firm’s ambitions. He declared that the company’s goal was to collect as much personal data as it could on individual users so that it could improve the quality of its search results and even start making recommendations, like a trusted friend. “We are very early in the total information we have,” he said. “We cannot even answer the most basic question about you because we don’t know enough about you. The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask questions such as ‘What shall I do tomorrow?’ and ‘What job shall I take?’ ”

His comments provoked a firestorm. Right-to-privacy campaigners howled that a machine that knows so much about us that it can tell us what to do would be the biggest-ever threat to personal privacy. No totalitarian regime, no Bond villain had dreamt up anything so creepy. “At what stage,” one critic asked, “did the company whose motto is ‘Don’t be evil’ evolve into the Evil Empire?”

What’s going on? Is Google trying to take over the world’s information and worm its way into our consciousness? When he said he could implant a Google chip in our brain, was Brin not joking, after all? Or have we all got the wrong end of the memory stick?

You only have to spend a few hours in the Googleplex, talking to Mayer and fellow Googleytes, to realise that, if anything, Schmidt was being conservative. Instead of worrying that they are going too far, Google’s top team talk, with poker faces, about a “300-year mission” that will eventually see almost everything – including, perhaps, one day you and me – linked to the web and searchable online.

Google’s techno-dream comes in three bytes. The first is loosely referred to as “universal search”. Scribbling frantically on a whiteboard, Mayer, Google’s head of search products and user experience, says the web is currently “very limited and primitive”. It consists mainly of words, images and some music, mostly created in the last few years. There is much, much more that could – and should – be online. At its simplest level, this includes every film, TV show, video or radio broadcast ever made; every book, academic paper, pamphlet, government document, map, chart and blog ever published in any language anywhere; and any piece of music ever recorded. Google is currently developing new software that will scan millions of new sources of information to give richer search results.

Mayer illustrates the idea by googling her hero, Apple’s founder, Steve Jobs, on her PC, which already uses an experimental version of universal search. The results include video news archives, the latest news on the iPhone, highlights of Jobs’s career, and up-do-date news stories. “You get six searches for the price of one,” she says in her curiously giggly voice.

So far, so uncontroversial – but there’s much more. Mayer and co argue that to be true to its mission statement of “organising all the world’s information and making it universally accessible and useful”, Google should be about more than searching for words, images and music; it should be about finding objects and, eventually, people. Any item that can be fitted with a radio-frequency identifier – an electronic tag called an RFID – can be linked to the internet over local or national WiFi networks. Retailers already use this technology for stocktaking, and fleet managers track buses and taxis this way. Why not, asks Mayer, “take the things you care about – your watch, your phone – stick little tags on them and watch for their receiving signals”? This is not a joke. “It would have been really useful to me yesterday when I lost my cellphone while it was out of power. It took me half an hour to find it had fallen behind a dresser.” And why not go one step further and tag your partner or your children, so that you can find out where they are whenever you want? Googleytes point out that we already do this with newborn babies and pets.

The second part of Google’s techno-dream is “personalised search”. Google has just launched iGoogle, a new turbocharged version of its regular search service. It allows Google to monitor our search and web-surfing history, so that it can find out who we are, how old we are, what job we do, whether we are married and have children, where we go on holiday, what we do in our spare time – anything, in fact, that it can glean from our web-surfing, which, since we do so much online these days, means pretty much everything. Google wants us to sign up for iGoogle on our PC, and also to install it, along with Gmail, Google Maps and Google Earth software, on our mobile phone, so that it knows not just who we are but where we are in the world, 24 hours a day, thanks to the satellite-positioning chips starting to be included in mobile phones. “Our goal is that you can, if you want, search for anything, anywhere, any time,” says Douglas Merrill, 37, Google’s chief information officer.

The final piece of the Google future is called “cloud computing”. Instead of using the internet to search for information that we then copy and use to work on documents stored on the hard drives of our computers, using the software on those computers, Google wants us to create all our documents online, to work on them online using Google’s web-based software, and to store them online on Google’s vast global network of servers. Google has recently launched its own web-based software programs – called Google Apps – that enable us to create password-protected word files and spreadsheets, edit them and store them online. These applications – along with Gmail, Calendar, Google’s online diary, Picasa, its picture-management and storage system, and Presentations, its online version of PowerPoint – mean Google will provide all our computing and storage needs, not on our PCs but, as Mayer puts it, “in the computational cloud”.

Google’s overall goal is to have a record of every e-mail we have ever written, every contact whose details we have recorded, every file we have created, every picture we have taken and saved, every appointment we have made, every website we have visited, every search query we have typed into its home page, every ad we have clicked on, and everything we have bought online. It wants to know and record where we have been and, thanks to our search history of airlines, car-hire firms and MapQuest, where we are going in the future and when.

This would not just make Google the largest, most powerful super-computer ever; it would make it the most powerful institution in history. Small wonder that the London-based human-rights group Privacy International has condemned its plans as “hostile to privacy”, and EU ministers called Google’s vision “Orwellian”. Even John Battelle, one of the net’s leading evangelists, who co-founded the technology bible Wired magazine, and wrote The Search, the definitive study of Google’s rise, now says: “I’ve found myself more and more wary of Google, out of some primal, lizard-brain fear of giving too much control of my data to one source.”

It all begs one key question: why? What makes a bunch of California geeks who are relaxed enough to spend their lives creating extraordinary products – and then give them away for nothing – suddenly want to take over the world, or at least its information?

To Googleytes, the most surprising thing about the row over its plans for the future is that anyone is surprised at all. Its founders have always envisaged a vast super-computer that connects everything and everyone. Ask Craig Silverstein. He knows because he was there at the beginning, when Brin and Page were graduate students messing about with algorithms at Stanford University, California, when they should have been out getting laid. Silverstein is a man for whom the word “geek” could have been invented. He is young – 34 – thin, has a beard and speaks softly. He does not like to travel more than once a year. He was Google’s first employee and, even though he is now worth £250m, he still turns up to work every day because he “likes solving complex software-engineering problems”. We meet in another anonymous meeting room with no windows. For a firm that expects us to tell it everything about ourselves, Google is remarkably coy about revealing the simplest information about itself – such as what its executives’ offices look like. Interviews in the executive suite are banned for fear that journalists might uncover its software secrets.

Over coffee, Silverstein, now director of technology, explains that, from the earliest days, Brin and Page envisaged a super-connected computer. “The vision of search has always been broader than has been portrayed in the press,” he says. “We would explain it every chance we got. I don’t think the press misunderstood it. It was just that they were focused on what the users were into at the time.” He recalls one example that shows that Brin and Page imagined that one day even the smallest “stuff” would be online. “When we were doing the first research, we used to eat in Whole Foods [an organic supermarket chain]. We talked about using search to find out what aisle the salt is on. Instead of having to look at the big signs at the top of each aisle, you could use a search engine to tell you where in the store everything is, and maybe graph it out for you.”

Brin and Page were obsessed with recording, categorising and indexing anything and everything, and then making it available to anyone with internet access because they genuinely believed – and still do – that it is a morally good thing to do. It may sound hopelessly hippie-ish and wildly hypocritical coming from a couple of guys worth £10 billion each, but Brin and Page insist they are not, and never have been, in it for the money. They see themselves as latter-day explorers, mapping human knowledge so that others can find trade routes in the new information economy.

“Google has been trying to democratise information to make it possible for everyone in the world to access the information they need to do the things they need to do,” Silverstein says. Belief in the value of information for its own sake was behind the firm’s highly controversial decision to cave in to demands from the Chinese government for censorship so as to break into the giant local market. Some information, Google reckoned, is better than none.

In spite of the growing public paranoia over its omnivorous intentions, Google is convinced that the more we find out about what it is up to, the more we will agree with it.


Google thinks that creating a free-to-use global library and global computer is “a good thing”. But it can only become a really useful library and computer if it knows more about the people that use it: you and me. If we trust it, it can do things for us we could never have imagined, things that Googleytes call “the magic stuff”.

Want every computer in the world to be “our” computer? Sign up for cloud computing. Lost our keys? Google will find them. Want to have an alfresco lunch? Use our Google-enabled phone to view images of our nearest Italian restaurant, check it has a terrace and book a table. Want to know how far our bus is from the bus stop or where the nearest taxi is? Look online. Worried that our child has safely reached school? Google him or her. Search and ye shall find.

The £100 billion question, therefore, is: will we feel comfortable putting our privacy on the line online? Or will fears that we will become slaves to the machine outweigh the desire for a connected future? In spite of the growing furore over privacy, the signs are that we might sign up. iGoogle personalised search is Google’s fastest-growing new product. It already accounts for one in five searches in America. The service has just been launched in Europe, and Google claims the take-up is strong.

Apple’s wildly popular iPhone already uses location-aware Google Maps, and online queues are forming for Google’s soon-to-be-launched suite of mobile-phone applications that will work on any handset. Some of America’s largest firms, including Procter & Gamble and L’Or, are already using cloud computing, in the first serious challenge to the dominance of Microsoft Office.

Polls show that, in spite of the recent furore, many web-users here and in the US do not care about privacy. According to a recent study by the Ponemon Institute, a US-based privacy think-tank, 68% of Americans believe that online privacy is important, but only 8% care enough about it to change their online behaviour. Above the din of chattering classes railing against “Googlezilla” can be heard the tip-tap of hundreds of millions of ordinary users willingly signing up to what they consider to be Google’s benign digital dictatorship. What’s another hunk of privacy lost if it makes life easier?

As I walk out of the Googleplex, I notice a new feature by the exit. It’s a giant 3-D computer-generated image of the globe which has giant red lasers shooting up into the sky. Each laser represents the number of Google search queries made at that point on the Earth’s surface. The higher the spikes, the greater the number of queries. It is supposed to be a celebration of what Google has achieved so far. But it also highlights how much of the world it has already conquered and reveals how much it soon hopes to colonise. It is the perfect metaphor for where that simple little search box we use every day has come from and what its vaulting ambitions are. It does not simply want to be a good search engine on the web: it wants to be the web.

Will it get there? In the end, it’s up to us. Google has only gone from being the most famous misspelling since “potatoe” to a verb recognised by the Oxford English Dictionary because you, me – in fact, almost all of us – use it. If we carry on logging on, it will carry on growing. And growing. If we don’t, it won’t. The choice – the click – is ours.

From a garage to the globe

1997 Larry Page and Sergey Brin, two 24-year-old Stanford University computer- science graduate students, register the domain name ‘’. The word ‘google’ is an accidental misspelling of ‘googol’, which refers to the number 10 to the power of 100 (or 1 followed by 100 zeros)

1998 Google becomes a private company and ‘launches’ on the worldwide web. Its headquarters are based in a garage in Menlo Park, northern California

2000 Google begins to sell ads linked to key search words

2001- 2 Advertising revenue and deep-pocketed venture capitalists help Google to ride out the dotcom crash

2003 Google expands rapidly, driving internet use and threatening industries as varied as music, newspapers, television, advertising, telephones, travel and pornography

2004 Google floats on the Nasdaq. Its shares initially sell for £40. Today they fetch more than £300, valuing the company at almost £100 billion

2006 Google buys YouTube, the largest and most popular video-exchange website

2007 Google announces its £1.5 billion plan to buy DoubleClick, the leading display-advertising business that also tracks web-users’ search behaviour

What makes google go?

- Two factors explain Google’s extraordinary success – its search-related services and its advertising business. Search brings in the crowds. Advertising brings in the money.

- Google dominates the market for search because in 1998 its founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, invented a better way to index and rank web pages.

- Before Google, search engines simply looked for keywords and their position on web pages to determine their content and importance. Unscrupulous publishers manipulated the system by filling their pages with popular keywords, usually hidden from view, to earn high rankings in search results.

- Instead of analysing the content of each page, Brin and Page devised PageRank, a complex mathematical algorithm that tallied how many other influential sites linked to that page.

- The partners reckoned that sites that were ‘well connected’ would be of higher quality. They were right. Google delivered more useful search results than its rivals.

- Thanks to PageRank – and dozens of other constantly evolving filtering, classifying and indexing systems – Google is now the most popular internet-search engine. In the US, the world’s biggest online market, Google’s share of queries is around 60%, Yahoo’s 23%, Microsoft’s 12%, Time Warner’s 4.5%. In the UK and much of Europe, Asia and Latin America, Google handles three out of every four search queries.

- Google’s second big breakthrough came with its advertising system, called AdWords. When you search for a topic on Google, small paid-for text ads show up next to search results.

- While it didn’t invent search-triggered ads, Google figured out a far more efficient way of turning web-users into buyers. Rather than doling out premium space to the highest bidder, as its competitors did, Google used another algorithm to work out how relevant the ad text was to a given query and the odds someone would actually click on it. This meant ads were targeted at the users most likely to respond to them. The result was that Google’s ‘click through’ rate (the number of times users click on ads) was twice as high as its nearest competitor’s. It has captured more than half the search-engine advertising market.


Google moves into virtual worlds

Five startups out to change the world

Google founder dreams of Google implant in your brain
Body modification - or channel ploy?

The Register March 3, 2004 (March 3 => 33)

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #85 on: February 01, 2008, 10:05:42 AM »
School to track pupils with radio chips sewn into their uniforms
23rd November 2007

Teacher Andy Stewart scans a pupil from Hungerhill School, Doncaster

Children are to be tracked in school via radio chips sewn into their uniforms.

The manufacturer is marketing the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) surveillance system nationwide, following a trial with 19 pupils at Hungerhill School in Doncaster this year.

The chip is embroidered into school uniforms using conductive 'smart threads'. A teacher can then scan these to view the pupil's identity, photo, whether they misbehaved in lessons and their school attendence record.

Hungerhill headteacher Graham Wakeling said the pilot was "not intrusive to the pupil in the slightest" because tracking would not go beyond the school's gates.

However, the chip has drawn criticism from civil liberties groups. David Clouter, from LeaveThemKidsAlone, a campaign group, was appalled by the idea.

"To put this in a school badge is complete and utter surveillance of the children. Tagging is what we do to criminals we let out of prison early," he said.

The chips were developed by Danrbro Ltd, which was set up by Andy Stewart, an ICT teacher at Hungerhill School, and a school uniform company.

Schools could fit scanners to doors or give teachers hand-held scanners to identify pupils entering or exiting rooms.

Darnbro siad their product can "trace a pupil's every step during the school day" and that the system can be set up to limit access to doors, such as shutting the main doors of a school to pupils during classtime.

Mr Stewart, 36, said the system would cost about £2000 for a small primary school and up to £14,000 for an average-sized secondary, according to the Times Educational Supplement.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families supports the use of electronic registration to improve safety and security and reduce truancy.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #86 on: February 01, 2008, 10:06:25 AM »
Brain-computer interface for controlling Second Life avatars

Category: NeuroscienceTechnology
Posted on: October 12, 2007 8:50 AM, by Mo

Researchers from the Biomedical Engineering Laboratory at Keio University in Japan have developed a brain-computer interface that enables users to control the movements of Second Life avatars without moving a muscle.

The device consists of a headset containing electrodes which monitor electrical activity in the motor cortex, the region of the brain involved in planning, executing and controlling movements.

All a user has to do to control his/her avatar is imagine performing various movements. The activity monitored by the headpiece is read and plotted by an electroencephalogram, which relays it to a computer running a brain wave analysis algorithm that interprets the imagined movements. A keyboard emulator then translates the data into signals which can be used to control the movements of the user's on-screen avatar in real-time.

Below is a (link to a) film clip of the device in use.

Brain-computer interface for controlling Second Life avatars

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #87 on: February 01, 2008, 10:07:14 AM »

Microchips and cancer

CASPIAN's new report, "Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990–2006," is a definitive review of research showing a causal link between implanted radio-frequency (RFID) microchip transponders and cancer in laboratory rodents and dogs. It was written in part to correct industry misstatements and misinformation circulating about the studies. (See bottom of this page for more.)

The report evaluates eleven articles previously published in toxicology and pathology journals. In six of the articles, between 0.8% and 10.2% of laboratory mice and rats developed malignant tumors around or adjacent to the microchips. Two additional articles reported microchip-related cancer in dogs. See Original Research Articles section below for details.

In almost all cases, the malignant tumors, typically sarcomas, arose at the site of the implants and grew to surround and fully encase the devices. These fast-growing, malignant tumors often led to the death of the afflicted animals. In many cases, the tumors metastasized or spread to other parts of the animals. The implants were unequivocally identified as the cause of the cancers.

The report reviews the relevant research and concludes with a series of recommendations for physicians, policy makers, pet owners, and researchers, including the following:

1) Further microchipping of humans should be immediately discontinued; (2) Implanted patients should be informed in writing of the research findings and offered a procedure for microchip removal, and (3) Policy makers should reverse all animal microchipping mandates.

Download the full report (52-page PDF)

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #88 on: February 01, 2008, 10:08:36 AM »
"Exodus" to virtual worlds predicted

Will real pubs empty as people head for virtual watering holes?

The appeal of online virtual worlds such as Second Life is such that it may trigger an exodus of people seeking to "disappear from reality," an expert on large-scale online games has said.

Virtual worlds have seen huge growth since they became mainstream in the early years of this decade, developing out of Massive Multiplayer Role-Playing Games.

And the online economies in some match those of real world countries.

Their draw is such that they could have a profound effect on some parts of society, Edward Castronova, Associate Professor in the Department of Telecommunications at Indiana University, told BBC World Service's Digital Planet programme.

"My guess is that the impact on the real world really is going to involve folks disappearing from reality in a lot of places where we see them," he said.

Varying involvement

Dr Castronova, who has written a book on the subject entitled Exodus To The Virtual World, drew parallels to the 1600s when thousands of people left Britain for a new life in North America.

"That certainly changed North America - and that's usually what we focus on - but it certainly changed the UK as well," he said.

"There will be a group of people who spend all their lives there, and the question for me is, how big is that group?" - Edward Castronova

"So what I tried to do in this book is say, 'listen - even if the typical reader doesn't spend any time in virtual worlds, what is going to be the impact on him of people going and doing this?'"

And he predicted that everyone will be involved in a virtual environment within ten years - although the level of that involvement will vary.

He said while some people will be colonists - "the virtual frontier opens up and off they go and disappear" - others will just use virtual worlds to get together with distant family and friends.

But he stressed there will be a group of people that spends all their lives there, and that the big question is the size of this group.

"We forget how many people there are, and we have to ask ourselves, how exciting is the game of life for most people out there?" he said.

Escape and refuge

The appeal, he said, is not for those in a good job, but for those working low-paid, low-skill jobs. "Would you rather be a Starbucks worker or a starship captain?" he asked.

Virtual worlds allow people to change their appearance from their real look

But he also stressed that since virtual worlds are social, he sees increased interaction in them as a step forward.

And he also highlighted the difference between seeing them as an "escape" and as a "refuge."

"If reality is a bad thing, and people are going into virtual worlds to reconnect, the word you would deploy is refuge," he said.

"A father of two spending 90 hours a week in a virtual world because he doesn't like his wife - I would say that's escapism, and it isn't anything you would say is good.

"But if it's a heavy-set girl from a small town who gets victimised just because her body isn't the 'right' kind of body, and she goes online to make friends because she can't get a fair shake in the real world, then I would say the virtual world is more of a refuge."


Dec. 17, 2007
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" on RBN (adverts removed):
"Exodus from Physical Slavery to Virtual Slavery - The Surrender of Consciousness" - transcript - mp3
(Article: ""Exodus" to virtual worlds predicted" BBC News, - Dec. 11, 2007.)

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #89 on: February 01, 2008, 10:09:10 AM »
Borg Hive Technology Now Nearly Main Street
Kurt Nimmo
December 19, 2007 

“All over the world, systems that directly connect silicon circuits to brains are under development, and some are nearly ready for commercial applications, according to a new report from the World Technology Evaluation Center and announced by a news release of the University of Southern California (USC),” writes ZDNet blogger Roland Piquepaille. “Some of the conclusions of this report about brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are quite surprising. For example, North America researchers focus almost exclusively on invasive BCIs while noninvasive BCI systems are mostly studied in European and Asian labs.”

By “invasive,” Mr. Piquepaille means they plant this stuff right in your gray matter. Of course, we are told all of this is for the betterment of man, sort of like that cure for cancer or the one for the common cold. It is indeed odd that the rate of cancer has skyrocketed over the last decade and new, more virulent and deadly forms of influenza viruses are appearing all the time, complete with warnings that if a really bad outbreak occurs we’ll be slapped under martial law.

Sure, a couple lucky souls may receive a “BCI” for damaged regions of the hippocampus, as this program must be sold to the public, but when you see DARPA stamped on something, be afraid. “This is a project funded by the EU Future Emerging Technology Program to develop a hierarchical, distributed-control, multiple-degrees-of-freedom robotic hand for replacement of lost limbs. The hand is designed to respond to signals from the human nervous system. It is included in the DARPA Revolutionizing Prosthetics program.”

DARPA and the European Union?

Of course, that’s only kid’s stuff, as the real scary totalitarians will soon begin developing this wonderful technology. “Future BCI research in China is clearly developing toward invasive BCI systems, so BCI researchers in the US will soon have a strong competitor.”

Prediction: China will take “invasive” to the limit. Imagine millions of Chinese workers, already fair to middling in the passive department, cranking out lead dusted toys and plastic spiked pet food with nary a bleat of protest, let alone need for breaks or, for that matter, sleep and entertainment.

It’s the ultimate technocratic Borg Hive, that much closer to realization.

In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley predicted an era when “most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution.” But if DARPA, the EU, and China have their way, the very act of loving and dreaming will likely become impossible with the right silicon-based, nanotechnological BCI system in place.

You will be assimilated.


Oct. 11, 2007 Alan Watt Blurb (i.e. Educational Talk)
"Mending Your Mind, Blending Your Kind and You Shall All Serve as One" - mp3 - transcript.
(Books: "Brave New World Revisited" by Aldous Huxley. "1984" by George Orwell.)

April 15, 2006 Alan Watt Special Presentation - Mass Mind Control (Includes Aldous Huxley Talk) - mp3 - transcript.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #90 on: February 01, 2008, 10:09:45 AM »
DARPA’s Control Freak Technology
Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:29:00
By Kurt Nimmo

(Truth News) -- According to Wired, the Pentagon is "about to embark on a stunningly ambitious research project designed to gather every conceivable bit of information about a person's life, index all the information and make it searchable?. What national security experts and civil libertarians want to know is, why would the Defense Department want to do such a thing?"

Once again, "security experts and civil libertarians" fail to understand the authoritarian, psychopathic mind. Our rulers do these sort of things because they are the ultimate control freaks, paranoid and suspicious of the average person ? or rather what the average person may do in order to get rid of the controllers, the parasites, who are compelled to spend billions of dollars on such projects, that is to say billions fleeced off the people they want to monitor and control. As usual, the excuse is they have to protect us from the terrorists, never mind they created the terrorists, too.

"The embryonic LifeLog program would dump everything an individual does into a giant database: every e-mail sent or received, every picture taken, every Web page surfed, every phone call made, every TV show watched, every magazine read," Wired continues. "All of this ? and more ? would combine with information gleaned from a variety of sources: a GPS transmitter to keep tabs on where that person went, audio-visual sensors to capture what he or she sees or says, and biomedical monitors to keep track of the individual's health."
In fact, a large part of this is already in place, thanks to the NSA's vacuum cleaner approach to searching for "al-Qaeda phone calls," cataloguing millions of phone calls each and every day, reading email, snooping internet destinations with the help of the telecoms. As for GPS, you have one in your cell phone, as well as a way for the snoops to listen in on what you say, even when you think the phone is switched off.

If the government had its way ? and it may very well in a few years, thanks to the bovine nature of the average American ? you will be chipped or at minimum have an RFID in your wallet or purse, thus they will be track where you go and when.

This gigantic amalgamation of personal information could then be used to "trace the ?threads' of an individual's life," to see exactly how a relationship or events developed, according to a briefing from the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency, LifeLog's sponsor.

Someone with access to the database could "retrieve a specific thread of past transactions, or recall an experience from a few seconds ago or from many years earlier ? by using a search-engine interface."

For instance, it could be determined if you harbor "discontent" with the government, in other words if you're with al-Qaeda.

On the surface, the project seems like the latest in a long line of DARPA's "blue sky" research efforts, most of which never make it out of the lab. But DARPA is currently asking businesses and universities for research proposals to begin moving LifeLog forward. And some people, such as Steven Aftergood, a defense analyst with the Federation of American Scientists, are worried.

With its controversial Total Information Awareness database project, DARPA already is planning to track all of an individual's "transactional data" ? like what we buy and who gets our e-mail.

While the parameters of the project have not yet been determined, Aftergood said he believes LifeLog could go far beyond TIA's scope, adding physical information (like how we feel) and media data (like what we read) to this transactional data.

"LifeLog has the potential to become something like ?TIA cubed,'" he said.

No doubt, the pointy-heads in the Pentagon are particularly interested in this "how we feel" aspect of the program. Not even Orwell was able to imagine such a scary control device.

You see an image of our commander-guy on television or the web, your biomedical implant registers an elevated level or disgust, and the thought police are dispatched in SWAT fashion. It's off to the re-education camp for you.

Of course, that's really "blue sky" stuff at this point. Instead, for the moment, we'll have to settle for DARPA tracking us on the internet, thanks to technology under development at Microsoft.

In the private sector, a number of LifeLog-like efforts already are underway to digitally archive one's life ? to create a "surrogate memory," as minicomputer pioneer Gordon Bell calls it.

Bell, now with Microsoft, scans all his letters and memos, records his conversations, saves all the Web pages he's visited and e-mails he's received and puts them into an electronic storehouse dubbed MyLifeBits.

DARPA's LifeLog would take this concept several steps further by tracking where people go and what they see.

Of course, if you know the government is tracking where you go, chances are you may not go there. And that's why DARPA is spending your hard-earned tax money on technology you can't get around, just in case you're with al-Qaeda or a Ron Paul supporter.

That makes the project similar to the work of University of Toronto professor Steve Mann. Since his teen years in the 1970s, Mann, a self-styled "cyborg," has worn a camera and an array of sensors to record his existence. He claims he's convinced 20 to 30 of his current and former students to do the same. It's all part of an experiment into "existential technology" and "the metaphysics of free will."

DARPA isn't quite so philosophical about LifeLog. But the agency does see some potential battlefield uses for the program.

Indeed, military types are not normally interested in all that philosophical stuff, as they are too busy finding and eliminating enemies. DARPA concentrates on the battlefield and the battlefield is right here on Main Street. DARPA does somersaults to fit LifeLog into a traditional military context but it fails and fails miserably. Obviously, this system is for us, the commoners, and the real enemies of power.

John Pike, director of defense think tank, said he finds the explanations "hard to believe."

"It looks like an outgrowth of Total Information Awareness and other DARPA homeland security surveillance programs," he added in an e-mail.

Sure, LifeLog could be used to train robotic assistants. But it also could become a way to profile suspected terrorists, said Cory Doctorow, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In other words, Osama bin Laden's agent takes a walk around the block at 10 each morning, buys a bagel and a newspaper at the corner store and then calls his mother. You do the same things ? so maybe you're an al Qaeda member, too!

Bingo! And as we know, al-Qaeda now encompasses at lot of behavior, as even garden variety criminals are considered terrorists. But the run-of-the-mill pot smoker or bad check writer pales in comparison to those who are walking around experiencing "discontent" with the government. Obviously, a bad check writer will have at best minimal influence on the government while an al-Qaeda terrorist in a 9/11 truth t-shirt is most certainly a direct challenge and threat to the guys in charge, and that's why DARPA was put on the case.

"The more that an individual's characteristic behavior patterns ? ?routines, relationships and habits' ? can be represented in digital form, the easier it would become to distinguish among different individuals, or to monitor one," Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists analyst, wrote in an e-mail.

In its LifeLog report, DARPA makes some nods to privacy protection, like when it suggests that "properly anonymized access to LifeLog data might support medical research and the early detection of an emerging epidemic."

But before these grand plans get underway, LifeLog will start small. Right now, DARPA is asking industry and academics to submit proposals for 18-month research efforts, with a possible 24-month extension. (DARPA is not sure yet how much money it will sink into the program.)

Not that money is an object when the American tax payer is picking up the tab.

Like a game show, winning this DARPA prize eventually will earn the lucky scientists a trip for three to Washington, D.C. Except on this excursion, every participating scientist's e-mail to the travel agent, every padded bar bill and every mad lunge for a cab will be monitored, categorized and later dissected.

And if the scientists are not extra careful, they may end up dead or missing, like not shortage microbiologists, as secret program like to clean up and stragglers who may cause embarrassment or Nuremberg-like trials down the road.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #91 on: February 01, 2008, 10:10:31 AM »

Klüft touts computer chip implants
Published: 19 Dec 07 12:59 CET

Swedish athletes Carolina Klüft and Stefan Holm have caused a stir on the home front by proposing radical measures to ensure that top level competitors refrain from taking performance-enhancing drugs.

Klüft and Holm, reigning Olympic champions in the heptathlon and high-jump events, both agreed that competitors at the highest level should either have computer chips implanted into their skin or GPS transmitters attached to their training bags to help keep track of their movements at all times.

According to Klüft, today's system - whereby athletes provide quarterly advance reports of their probable whereabouts - is not sufficient to tackle the sport's problems with doping.

"I have previously proposed that we should have computer chips surgically implanted into our skin. But it might be just as good if everybody at a certain level had a key ring with a GPS transmitter on their training bags. That way everybody involved knows where we are at all times and can find us for tests," Klüft told Svenska Dagbladet.

"I wouldn't have any complaints about surveillance of this kind. In fact, I think we have an obligation to go along with most things. Doping is terrible, which means it is important we have an open mind and are brave enough to discuss and debate the issue," she added.

The Swedish superstar, who has not lost a single heptathlon or pentathlon event since 2002, also revealed that the mere thought of consuming a banned substance filled her with dread. If ever she failed a doping test, Klüft said that her life would not be worth living and she would have to leave Sweden.

Stefan Holm, gold medal winner in the high jump event at the 2004 Olympics, said he was open to his compatriot's suggestions.

"Honestly, why not? [A GPS transmitter] might be radical and it sounds brutal but sometimes it feels like a good solution to avoid being treated with suspicion for no reason. But it's hard to be one hundred percent sure without having a chip surgically implanted into the skin," he told Svenska Dagbladet.

Since athletes are already observed very closely, Holm argued that increased surveillance in the form of a computer chip would make little difference to the top performers.

"They really do want to know where we are at any given moment and in a way it would be the easiest way to keep track of us athletes, however science fiction and absurd it may sound," Holm added.

Paul O'Mahony ( 656 6513)

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #92 on: February 01, 2008, 10:11:11 AM »
US: Rhode Island School Children to be Chipped Like Dogs
Meaghan Wims
Providence Journal
Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:40 EST

MIDDLETOWN - The Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union is calling on the Middletown School Department to drop its planned pilot program of a student-tracking system that the ACLU says would treat children like "cattle" and violate their privacy.

The school district this month will test the Mobile Accountability Program, or MAP, which will place GPS tracking devices in two school buses and attach radio-frequency identification labels to the backpacks of the 80 or so Aquidneck Elementary School students who ride those buses. School administrators will then be able to monitor - in real-time, via an online map of Middletown at MAPIT's secure Web site - the progress of those buses and their passengers as the children enter and exit the buses.

MAP is designed to improve transportation safety and efficiency and the pilot would last for the rest of the school year, after which school officials will determine whether to expand the program to the district's entire bus fleet.

The ACLU, in a letter Friday to Schools Supt. Rosemarie K. Kraeger, expressed its "deep concerns" about MAP and urged the school district to halt the pilot project.

Using radio-frequency technology to track school buses seems "rather unnecessary," ACLU executive director Steven Brown wrote.

But it's Middletown's use of electronic chips to also monitor the students themselves that most troubles the ACLU, Brown wrote.

"RFID [radio-frequency ID] technology was originally developed to track products and cattle," Brown wrote.

"The privacy and security implications with using this technology for tagging human beings, particularly children, are considerable.... Requiring students to wear RFID labels treats them as objects, not children. The Middletown school district sends a very disturbing message to its young students when it monitors them using technology employed to track cattle, sheep and shipment pallets in warehouses."

Plus, the IDs could be unsafe, according to the ACLU, because Web sites sell electronic readers that can intercept the data on students' tags.

Schools Supt. Rosemarie K. Kraeger said yesterday that the school district doesn't plan to abandon its pilot program. School officials, she said, considered MAP for more than a year and questioned the provider, MAPIT Corp., about how students' privacy would be protected.

She said the school district is confident that the program includes the necessary safeguards to protect students' identities.

"I wish Mr. Brown had called to find out the details of the project," Kraeger said.

"The company went to extra pains to make sure all our concerns had been addressed, and we did our due diligence. We feel secure."

The School Department sent letters to the parents of the 80 children included in the pilot, and Kraeger said none have complained.

In fact, she said, two parents have recently e-mailed her to express support for the tracking program.

Nonetheless, the ACLU is urging Middletown schools to "respect the privacy and civil liberties of Middletown's elementary school students" and reconsider implementing the MAP pilot.

"This is just another example of overkill," Brown said yesterday.

"The biggest concern is how this could acclimate young kids at an early age to being monitored by the government."

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #93 on: February 01, 2008, 10:11:46 AM »
Prisoners 'to be chipped like dogs'
Hi-tech 'satellite' tagging planned in order to create more space in jails
Civil rights groups and probation officers furious at 'degrading' scheme

By Brian Brady, Whitehall Editor
Published: 13 January 2008

Ministers are planning to implant "machine-readable" microchips under the skin of thousands of offenders as part of an expansion of the electronic tagging scheme that would create more space in British jails.

Amid concerns about the security of existing tagging systems and prison overcrowding, the Ministry of Justice is investigating the use of satellite and radio-wave technology to monitor criminals.

But, instead of being contained in bracelets worn around the ankle, the tiny chips would be surgically inserted under the skin of offenders in the community, to help enforce home curfews. The radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, as long as two grains of rice, are able to carry scanable personal information about individuals, including their identities, address and offending record.

The tags, labelled "spychips" by privacy campaigners, are already used around the world to keep track of dogs, cats, cattle and airport luggage, but there is no record of the technology being used to monitor offenders in the community. The chips are also being considered as a method of helping to keep order within prisons.

A senior Ministry of Justice official last night confirmed that the department hoped to go even further, by extending the geographical range of the internal chips through a link-up with satellite-tracking similar to the system used to trace stolen vehicles. "All the options are on the table, and this is one we would like to pursue," the source added.

The move is in line with a proposal from Ken Jones, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), that electronic chips should be surgically implanted into convicted paedophiles and sex offenders in order to track them more easily. Global Positioning System (GPS) technology is seen as the favoured method of monitoring such offenders to prevent them going near "forbidden" zones such as primary schools.

"We have wanted to take advantage of this technology for several years, because it seems a sensible solution to the problems we are facing in this area," a senior minister said last night. "We have looked at it and gone back to it and worried about the practicalities and the ethics, but when you look at the challenges facing the criminal justice system, it's time has come."

The Government has been forced to review sentencing policy amid serious overcrowding in the nation's jails, after the prison population soared from 60,000 in 1997 to 80,000 today. The crisis meant the number of prisoners held in police cells rose 13-fold last year, with police stations housing offenders more than 60,000 times in 2007, up from 4,617 the previous year. The UK has the highest prison population per capita in western Europe, and the Government is planning for an extra 20,000 places at a cost of £3.8bn – including three gigantic new "superjails" – in the next six years.

More than 17,000 individuals, including criminals and suspects released on bail, are subject to electronic monitoring at any one time, under curfews requiring them to stay at home up to 12 hours a day. But official figures reveal that almost 2,000 offenders a year escape monitoring by tampering with ankle tags or tearing them off. Curfew breaches rose from 11,435 in 2005 to 43,843 in 2006 – up 283 per cent. The monitoring system, which relies on mobile-phone technology, can fail if the network crashes.

A multimillion-pound pilot of satellite monitoring of offenders was shelved last year after a report revealed many criminals simply ditched the ankle tag and separate portable tracking unit issued to them. The "prison without bars" project also failed to track offenders when they were in the shadow of tall buildings.

The Independent on Sunday has now established that ministers have been assessing the merits of cutting-edge technology that would make it virtually impossible for individuals to remove their electronic tags.

The tags, injected into the back of the arm with a hypodermic needle, consist of a toughened glass capsule holding a computer chip, a copper antenna and a "capacitor" that transmits data stored on the chip when prompted by an electromagnetic reader.

But details of the dramatic option for tightening controls over Britain's criminals provoked an angry response from probation officers and civil-rights groups. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: "If the Home Office doesn't understand why implanting a chip in someone is worse than an ankle bracelet, they don't need a human-rights lawyer; they need a common-sense bypass.

"Degrading offenders in this way will do nothing for their rehabilitation and nothing for our safety, as some will inevitably find a way round this new technology."

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said the proposal would not make his members' lives easier and would degrade their clients. He added: "I have heard about this suggestion, but we feel the system works well enough as it is. Knowing where offenders like paedophiles are does not mean you know what they are doing.

"This is the sort of daft idea that comes up from the department every now and then, but tagging people in the same way we tag our pets cannot be the way ahead. Treating people like pieces of meat does not seem to represent an improvement in the system to me."

The US market leader VeriChip Corp, whose parent company has been selling radio tags for animals for more than a decade, has sold 7,000 RFID microchips worldwide, of which about 2,000 have been implanted in humans. The company claims its VeriChips are used in more than 5,000 installations, crossing healthcare, security, government and industrial markets, but they have also been used to verify VIP membership in nightclubs, automatically gaining the carrier entry – and deducting the price of their drinks from a pre-paid account.

The possible value of the technology to the UK's justice system was first highlighted 18 months ago, when Acpo's Mr Jones suggested the chips could be implanted into sex offenders. The implants would be tracked by satellite, enabling authorities to set up "zones", including schools, playgrounds and former victims' homes, from which individuals would be barred.

"If we are prepared to track cars, why don't we track people?" Mr Jones said. "You could put surgical chips into those of the most dangerous sex offenders who are willing to be controlled."

The case for: 'We track cars, so why not people?'

The Government is struggling to keep track of thousands of offenders in the community and is troubled by an overcrowded prison system close to bursting. Internal tagging offers a solution that could impose curfews more effectively than at present, and extend the system by keeping sex offenders out of "forbidden areas". "If we are prepared to track cars, why don't we track people?" said Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).

Officials argue that the internal tags enable the authorities to enforce thousands of court orders by ensuring offenders remain within their own walls during curfew hours – and allow the immediate verification of ID details when challenged.

The internal tags also have a use in maintaining order within prisons. In the United States, they are used to track the movement of gang members within jails.

Offenders themselves would prefer a tag they can forget about, instead of the bulky kit carried around on the ankle.

The case against: 'The rest of us could be next'

Professionals in the criminal justice system maintain that the present system is 95 per cent effective. Radio frequency identification (RFID) technology is unproven. The technology is actually more invasive, and carries more information about the host. The devices have been dubbed "spychips" by critics who warn that they would transmit data about the movements of other people without their knowledge.

Consumer privacy expert Liz McIntyre said a colleague had already proved he could "clone" a chip. "He can bump into a chipped person and siphon the chip's unique signal in a matter of seconds," she said.

One company plans deeper implants that could vibrate, electroshock the implantee, broadcast a message, or serve as a microphone to transmit conversations. "Some folks might foolishly discount all of these downsides and futuristic nightmares since the tagging is proposed for criminals like rapists and murderers," Ms McIntyre said. "The rest of us could be next."

To have your say on this or any other issue visit

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #94 on: February 01, 2008, 10:12:20 AM »
Doctor alleges plans underway to "Microchip" Newborns in U.S. and Europe

Compiled by Lucien Desjardins

Regarding plans to microchip newborns, Dr. Kilde said the U.S. has been moving in this direction "in secrecy."

She added that in Sweden, Prime Minister Olof Palme gave permission in 1973 to implant prisoners, and Data Inspection's ex-Director General Jan Freese revealed that nursing-home patients were implanted in the mid-1980s. The technology is revealed in the 1972:47 Swedish state report, Statens Officiella Utradninger.

Are you prepared to live in a world in which every newborn baby is micro-chipped? And finally are you ready to have your every move tracked, recorded and placed in Big Brother's data bank? According to the Finnish article, distributed to doctors and medical students, time is running out for changing the direction of military medicine and mind control technology, ensuring the future of human freedom.

"Implanted human beings can be followed anywhere. Their brain functions can be remotely monitored by supercomputers and even altered through the changing of frequencies," wrote Dr. Kilde. "Guinea pigs in secret experiments have included prisoners, soldiers, mental patients,handicapped children, deaf and blind people, homosexuals, single women, the elderly, school children, and any group of people considered "marginal" by the elite experimenters. The published experiences of prisoners in Utah State Prison, for example, are shocking to the conscience.

"Today's microchips operate by means of low-frequency radio waves that target them. With the help of satellites, the implanted person can be tracked anywhere on the globe. Such a technique was among a number tested in the Iraq war, according to Dr. Carl Sanders, who invented the intelligence-manned interface (IMI) biotic, which is injected into people. (Earlier during the Vietnam War, soldiers were injected with the Rambo chip, designed to increase adrenaline flow into the bloodstream.) The 20-billion-bit/second supercomputers at the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) could now "see and hear" what soldiers experience in the battlefield with a remote monitoring system (RMS).

"When a 5-micromillimeter microchip (the diameter of a strand of hair is 50 micromillimeters) is placed into optical nerve of the eye,", Dr. Kilde indicates "it draws neuro-impulses from the brain that embody the experiences, smells, sights, and voice of the implanted person. Once transferred and stored in a computer, these neuro-impulses can be projected back to the person's brain via the microchip to be re-experienced. Using a RMS, a land-based computer operator can send electromagnetic messages (encoded as signals) to the nervous system, affecting the target's performance. With RMS, healthy persons can be induced to see hallucinations and to hear voices in their heads. "

"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, " Dr. Kilde adds. "Electromagnetic stimulation can therefore change a person's brainwaves and affect muscular activity, causing painful muscular cramps experienced as torture."

Make comments about this article in The Canadian Blog.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #95 on: February 01, 2008, 10:13:09 AM »
Next-generation toys read brain waves
2007 05 04

A NeuroSky worker wears a Darth Vader outfit as he controls a light saber using his brain waves. NeuroSky's headset measures brain-wave activity, including signals that relate to concentration, relaxation and anxiety.

A convincing twin of Darth Vader stalks the beige cubicles of a Silicon Valley office, complete with ominous black mask, cape and light saber.

But this is no chintzy Halloween costume. It's a prototype, years in the making, of a toy that incorporates brain wave-reading technology.

Behind the mask is a sensor that touches the user's forehead and reads the brain's electrical signals, then sends them to a wireless receiver inside the saber, which lights up when the user is concentrating.

The player maintains focus by channeling thoughts on any fixed mental image, or thinking specifically about keeping the light sword on. When the mind wanders, the wand goes dark.

Engineers at NeuroSky Inc. have big plans for brain wave-reading toys and video games. They say the simple Darth Vader game -- a relatively crude biofeedback device cloaked in gimmicky garb -- portends the coming of more sophisticated devices that could revolutionize the way people play.

Technology from NeuroSky and other startups could make video games more mentally stimulating and realistic. It could even enable players to control video game characters or avatars in virtual worlds with nothing but their thoughts.

Adding biofeedback to "Tiger Woods PGA Tour," for instance, could mean that only those players who muster Zen-like concentration could nail a put. In the popular first-person shooter "Grand Theft Auto," players who become nervous or frightened would have worse aim than those who remain relaxed and focused.

NeuroSky's prototype measures a person's baseline brain-wave activity, including signals that relate to concentration, relaxation and anxiety. The technology ranks performance in each category on a scale of 1 to 100, and the numbers change as a person thinks about relaxing images, focuses intently, or gets kicked, interrupted or otherwise distracted.

The technology is similar to more sensitive, expensive equipment that athletes use to achieve peak performance. Koo Hyoung Lee, a NeuroSky co-founder from South Korea, used biofeedback to improve concentration and relaxation techniques for members of his country's Olympic archery team.

"Most physical games are really mental games," said Lee, also chief technology officer at San Jose-based NeuroSky, a 12-employee company founded in 1999. "You must maintain attention at very high levels to succeed. This technology makes toys and video games more lifelike."

Boosters say toys with even the most basic brain wave-reading technology -- scheduled to debut later this year -- could boost mental focus and help kids with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and mood disorders.

But scientific research is scant. Even if the devices work as promised, some question whether people who use biofeedback devices will be able to replicate their relaxed or focused states in real life, when they're not attached to equipment in front of their television or computer.

Elkhonon Goldberg, clinical professor of neurology at New York University, said the toys might catch on in a society obsessed with optimizing performance -- but he was skeptical they'd reduce the severity of major behavioral disorders.

"These techniques are used usually in clinical contexts. The gaming companies are trying to push the envelope," said Goldberg, author of "The Wisdom Paradox: How Your Mind Can Grow Stronger As Your Brain Grows Older." "You can use computers to improve the cognitive abilities, but it's an art."

It's also unclear whether consumers, particularly American kids, want mentally taxing games.

"It's hard to tell whether playing games with biofeedback is more fun -- the company executives say that, but I don't know if I believe them," said Ben Sawyer, director of the Games for Health Project, a division of the Serious Games Initiative. The think tank focuses in part on how to make computer games more educational, not merely pastimes for kids with dexterous thumbs.

The basis of many brain wave-reading games is electroencephalography, or EEG, the measurement of the brain's electrical activity through electrodes placed on the scalp. EEG has been a mainstay of psychiatry for decades.

An EEG headset in a research hospital may have 100 or more electrodes that attach to the scalp with a conductive gel. It could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

But the price and size of EEG hardware is shrinking. NeuroSky's "dry-active" sensors don't require gel, are the size of a thumbnail, and could be put into a headset that retails for as little as $20, said NeuroSky CEO Stanley Yang.

Yang is secretive about his company's product lineup because of a nondisclosure agreement with the manufacturer. But he said an international toy manufacturer plans to unveil an inexpensive gizmo with an embedded NeuroSky biosensor at the Japan Toy Association's trade show in late June. A U.S. version is scheduled to debut at the American International Fall Toy Show in October.

"Whatever we sell, it will work on 100 percent or almost 100 percent of people out there, no matter what the condition, temperature, indoor or outdoors," Yang said. "We aim for wearable technology that everyone can put on and go without failure, as easy as the iPod."

Researchers at NeuroSky and other startups are also building prototypes of toys that use electromyography (EMG), which records twitches and other muscular movements, and electrooculography (EOG), which measures changes in the retina.

While NeuroSky's headset has one electrode, Emotiv Systems Inc. has developed a gel-free headset with 18 sensors. Besides monitoring basic changes in mood and focus, Emotiv's bulkier headset detects brain waves indicating smiles, blinks, laughter, even conscious thoughts and unconscious emotions. Players could kick or punch their video game opponent -- without a joystick or mouse.

"It fulfills the fantasy of telekinesis," said Tan Le, co-founder and president of San Francisco-based Emotiv.

The 30-person company hopes to begin selling a consumer headset next year, but executives would not speculate on price. A prototype hooks up to gaming consoles such as the Nintendo Wii, Sony PlayStation 3 and Microsoft Xbox 360.

Le, a 29-year-old Australian woman, said the company decided in 2004 to target gamers because they would generate the most revenue -- but eventually Emotive will build equipment for clinical use. The technology could enable paralyzed people to "move" in virtual realty; people with obsessive-compulsive disorders could measure their anxiety levels, then adjust medication accordingly.

The husband-and-wife team behind CyberLearning Technology LLC took the opposite approach. The San Marcos-based startup targets doctors, therapists and parents of adolescents with autism, impulse control problems and other pervasive developmental disorders.

CyberLearning is already selling the SmartBrain Technologies system for the original PlayStation, PS2 and original Xbox, and it will soon work with the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. The EEG- and EMG-based biofeedback system costs about $600, not including the game console or video games.

Kids who play the race car video game "Gran Turismo" with the SmartBrain system can only reach maximum speed when they're focused. If attention wanes or players become impulsive or anxious, cars slow to a chug.

CyberLearning has sold more than 1,500 systems since early 2005. The company hopes to reach adolescents already being treated for behavior disorders. But co-founder Lindsay Greco said the budding niche is unpredictable.

"Our biggest struggle is to find the target market," said Greco, who has run treatment programs for children with attention difficulties since the 1980s. "We're finding that parents are using this to improve their own recall and focus. We have executives who use it to improve their memory, even their golf."

Article from:

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #96 on: February 01, 2008, 10:13:49 AM »
Mexican government to use "biochips" to curb immigration (39s)

Mexico to Microchip Central American Migrants
Kurt Nimmo
Truth News
Saturday, December 29, 2007

As an omen of things to come, in March the National Immigration Institute of Mexico will demand Central Americans workers and visitors carry ID cards with electronic chips. The ID cards “will record every arrival and departure of so-called temporary workers and visitors, mostly from Guatemala,” reports KGBT 4 out of Harlingen, Texas. “Officials say the purpose is to guarantee security for workers and visitors.”

Of course, the real purpose has nothing to do with the well-being or security of workers and visitors, but is part and parcel of the emerging control grid to be implemented by the NAU at the behest of world government.

According to a news story posted at NewKerala, however, the ID will transcend a mere RFID card and will be an implantable microchip. “In a communiqué, the INM Thursday said Biochip implants would be used to control the entry of workers and visitors from Belize and Guatemala from March 2008,” an assertion apparently vouched by the Spanish news agency EFE. In addition, the story was carried by IANS, a news agency in India.

NWO ~ Stan Jones Speaks About NAU, Amero, National ID Card (3mins 29s)

As U.S. Senate Libertarian candidate from Montana, Stan Jones warned, a national ID card with an RFID chip is an integral part of the NAU agenda (see video). “You will not be able to move about freely,” explained Jones. “This is terrorism of the most worst kind, brought on you by our own government.”

Discussing New York’s sidelined plan to issue driver licenses to illegals, radio talk show host Charles Goyette of KFNX in Phoenix, Arizona, warned that “all of this stuff is headed toward a national ID card… it is an inevitability with the national security state that the Republicans and the Democrats have ushered in this country with the Patriot Act and more… we’re headed toward a national ID card, we’re head to be vassals or serfs of the state… and I’ve looked at the field of presidential candidates and there is only one guy who is outspoken against this kind of stuff and it is congressman Ron Paul, he’s been against this idea of a national security state for a long time” (see video).

Radio Talk Show Host Discusses National ID & Ron Paul (9mins 54s)

For many, the idea of an RFID ID card seems innocuous enough, however, our rulers have far more sinister plans in mind — ultimately an implantable microchip designed to replace a card, subject to loss or theft.

“It is technically possible for every newborn to be injected with a microchip, which could then function to identify the person for the rest of his or her life. Such plans are secretly being discussed in the U.S. without any public airing of the privacy issues involved,” noted Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde, MD, the former Chief Medical Officer of Finland in 2000. It is not simply identification our rulers are interested in implementing, but something far more nefarious, as Luukanen-Kilde explained:

The NSA’s electronic surveillance system can simultaneously follow and handle millions of people. Each of us has a unique bioelectrical resonance frequency in the brain, just as we have unique fingerprints. With electromagnetic 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.

As should be expected, this grandiose plan to turn populations into Borg-like creatures will begin with seemingly innocuous RFID cards. In Mexico, this plan is well underway with the issuance of RFID cards, imposed on those least able to resist. In likewise fashion, the agenda will be forced on the American people at large, a scheme already far advanced in the planned issuance of REAL ID. Once implemented, the only question that will remain will be: how long before we are forced to accept an implantable microchip?

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #97 on: February 01, 2008, 10:14:48 AM »
Scientists Gingerly Tap Into Brain's Power
by Kevin Maney - USA TODAY October 11, 2004

Today's science fiction could be tomorrow's reality - and a whole new world for everyone from paraplegics to fighter pilots

Foxborough, Mass. - A 25-year-old quadriplegic sits in a wheelchair with wires coming out of a bottle-cap-size connector stuck in his skull.

The wires run from 100 tiny sensors implanted in his brain and out to a computer. Using just his thoughts, this former high school football player is playing the computer game Pong.

It is part of a breakthrough trial, the first of its kind, with far-reaching implications. Friday, early results were revealed at the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation annual conference. Cyberkinetics Neurotechnology Systems, the Foxborough-based company behind the technology, told attendees the man can use his thoughts to control a computer well enough to operate a TV, open e-mail and play Pong with 70% accuracy.

"The patient tells me this device has changed his life," says Jon Mukand, a physician caring for him at a rehabilitation facility in Warwick, R.I. The patient, who had the sensors implanted in June, has not been publicly identified.

The trial is approved by the FDA. Cyberkinetics has permission to do four more this year.

The significance of the technology, which Cyberkinetics call Braingate, goes far beyond the initial effort to help quadriplegics. It is an early step toward learning to read signals from an array of neurons and use computers and algorithms to translate the signals into action. That could lead to artificial limbs that work like the real thing: The user could think of moving a finger, and the finger would move.

"It's Luke Skywalker," says John Donoghue, the neuroscientist who led development of the technology at Brown University and in 2001 founded Cyberkinetics.

Connecting brains to computers: A way to help quadriplegics

Cyberkinetics, a company commercializing technology developed at Brown University, just reported the results of its first attempt to implant sensors into the brain of a quadriplegic. Signals from the sensor allow him to control a computer.

The brain in control

Further out, some experts believe, the technology could be built into a helmet or other device that could read neural signals from outside the skull, non-invasively. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is funding research in this field, broadly known as Brain Machine Interface, or BMI.

DARPA envisions a day when a fighter pilot, for instance, might operate some controls just by thinking.

DMI is a field about to explode. At Duke University a research team has employed different methods to read and interpret neural signals directly from the human brain. Other research is underway at universities around the world. Atlanta-based Neural Signals - a pioneer in BMI for the handicapped - has also been developing a system for tapping directly into the brain.

To be certain, the technology today is experimental and crude, perhaps at a stage similar to the first pacemaker in 1950, which was the size of a boombox and delivered jolts through wires implanted in the heart.

The Cyberkinetics trial "is great," says Jeff Hawkins, author of On Intelligence, a book about the brain out this month. But measuring enough neurons to do complex tasks like grasp a cup or speak words isn't close to feasible today. "Hooking your brain up to a machine in a way that the two could communicate rapidly and accurately is still science fiction," Hawkins says.

Layered on all of the BMI research are ethical and societal issues about messing with the brain to improve people. But those, too, are a long way from the research happening now.

Monkeys chasing dots

The Cyberkinetics technology grew out of experiments with monkeys at Brown.

Donoghue and his research team implanted sensors in the brains of monkeys, and got them to play a simple computer game - chasing dots around a screen with a cursor using a mouse - to get a food reward. As the monkeys played, computers read signals from the sensors and looked for patterns. From the patterns, the team developed mathematical models to determine which signals meant to move left, right, up, down and so on. After a while, the team disconnected the mouse and ran the cursor off the monkeys' thoughts. It worked: The monkeys could chase the dots by thinking of what they'd normally do with their hands.

A driving concept is to make the computer control natural, so a patient doesn't have to learn new skills.

The reason it works has to do with a discovery made by neuroscientists in the 1990's. The billions of neurons in each region of the brain work on physical tasks like an orchestra, and each neuron is one instrument.

With an orchestra, if you listen to only a few of the instruments, you could probably pick up what song is being played, but you wouldn't get all its richness and subtlety. Similarly, scientists found that if you can listen to any random group of neurons in a region, you can decipher generally what the region is trying to do - but you wouldn't get the richness and subtlety that might let a person do complex tasks.

The more neurons you can listen to, the more precisely you can pick out the song.

Cyberkinetics' big breakthrough is listening to up to 100 neurons at once and applying the computing power to make sense of that data almost instantly. The 100 sensors stick out from a chip the size of a contact lens. Through a hole in the skull, the chip is pressed into the cortex surface "like a thumbtack." Donoghue says.

Most of the sensors get near enough to a neuron to read its pattern of electrical pulses as they turn on and off, much like the 1s and 0s that are the basis for computing. Wires carry the signals out through a connector in the skull, and the computer does the rest.

Patient gaining accuracy

Cyberkinetics technicians work with the former football player three times a week, trying to fine-tune the system so he can do more tasks. He can move a cursor around a screen. If he leaves the cursor on a spot and dwells on it, that works like a mouse click.

Once he can control a computer, the possibilities get interesting. A computer could drive a motorized wheelchair, allowing him to go where he thinks about going. It could control his environment - lights, heat, locking or unlocking doors. And he could tap out e-mails, albeit slowly.

At this point, though, the equipment is unwieldy. The computer, two screens and other parts of the system are stacked on a tall cart. The processor and software can't do all the computations quite fast enough to move the cursor in real time - not instantly, the way your hand moves when you tell it to move. And because the sensors tap no more than 100 neurons, the cursor doesn't always move precisely. That's why a one-time athlete can play Pong at only 70% accuracy.

Though implanting a chip in the brain might seem alarming, devices are already regularly implanted in brains to help people who have sever epilepsy, Parkinson's disease or other neurological disorders. "We put drugs in our brains to improve them, even caffeine," says Arthur Caplan, head of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. "I don't think the brain is some sacrosanct organ you can't touch." Not everyone is a fan of Cyberkinetics' human trials. "I am very skeptical," says Miguel Nicolelis, co-director of the Duke center doing similar research. "They seem to want to simply push their views and make a buck without much consideration of what is appropriate and safe to suggest to different patients." At the moment, though, "The patient is very, very happy," says Mukand, who is also functioning as the FDA's investigator on the case.

Help with prosthetic limbs?

One way or another, neuroscience and technology are crashing together.

The Duke team has not implanted a permanent device in a human, but it has implanted sensors in monkeys who then move a robot arm by thought. Duke's results, published in July in the journal Neuroscience, show that the idea of using neurons to guide a prosthetic device can work.

To really be useful, the technology will have to get smaller, cheaper and wireless - perhaps a computer worn behind the ear. Down the road, it will have to tap many more neurons, and then the challenge will be building software to analyze more complicated patterns from so many more neurons.

"Brains are incredibly complex organs," author Hawkins says. "There are 100,000 neurons in a square millimeter of cortex. There are very precise codes in the neurons. The details matter."

A yet bigger challenge - the one DARPA faces - will be reading neural signals without drilling holes in people's skulls. Over the past decade, researchers have used the electroencephalogram (EEG) to pick up brain waves through electrodes attached to the head. After months of training, users can learn to play simple video games - such as making a wheel turn faster - with their thoughts. But EEG readings are too broad and weak to drive more specific tasks.

In June, researchers at Washington University, St. Louis, reported using a different external device - an electrocorticogarphic (ECoG) - to get more precise reading from outside the head. With a few hours of training, users could track targets on a screen.

But researchers at Duke, Brown and Cyberkinetics believe that the only way to get signals that can operate a robot arm, do e-mail or move a wheelchair is to touch the brain directly.

As with most technological developments, the devices will get smaller and better and the software will be made smarter, until some of what now seems bizarre becomes real. Society will be forced to debate the questions the technology raises.

"There are those who say this is slippery slope stuff - that this technology is opening the door to dangerous technologies that could enhance, improve and optimize someone," says bioethicist Caplan. "But I'm unwilling to hold hostage this kind of exciting medical research for those kinds of fears."



Brain Power
Device for the Paralyzed Turns Thinking to Doing

by Robert Lee Hotz, Times Staff Writer December 7, 2004

NEW YORK - Harnessing the electrical echoes of thought, researchers have developed a way for people to control a computer cursor simply by thinking about it.

The device, which so far has been tested successfully on four people, does not require implants, surgery or any other invasive medical procedure, the researchers reported Monday. Previous efforts required electrodes wired directly into brain cellls.

Instead, scientists at the New York State Department of Health and the State University of New York designed a system to monitor the faint electricity that naturally radiates from every brain and then created special computer software to translate those reflections of thought into direct action.

The research, which was made public in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, appears to offer a means for people paralyzed by stroke, spinal cord injury or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease) to operate computers or prosthetic devices by imagining the movement.

"It is an impressive achievement," said John Donoghue, a senior neuroscientist at Brown University who was not involved in the research project. "Such a device has great potential to improve the lives of paralyzed individuals."

Scientists have long sought to bridge the gulf of damaged nerves between the brain cells that control movement or speech and the muscles those cells seek to animate.

By developing a link between mind and computer, they hope that patients who are unable to move or speak can resume their interaction with the world around them. Researchers estimate that there are more than half a million "locked-in" patients - people who, due to disease or injury, are unable to control their muscles enough to activate any communication device.

Experimental implants developed by independent research groups at Brown, SUNY and Duke University have enabled monkeys to control cursors and robotic limbs through the power of thought, and even operate devices at a distance.

Starting in 1999, several paralyzed patients in Atlanta underwent experimental surgery for brain implants that allowed them rudimentary control of a computer.

Donoghue, who is also chief scientific officer of Cyberkinetics Inc. in Foxborough, Mass., is conducting clinical trials of an implant the size of an M&M that could allow people to send e-mail, surf the Web and command other computer resources simply by thinking about them.

The new brain-computer interface, however, eliminates the necessity for surgery.

The researchers used a skein of 64 electrodes in a cap placed on the scalp to eavesdrop on the wasted energy of thought, tapping into the patterns of neural electricity that normally dissipate in the immediate vicinity of the skull.

"Using signals recorded from the scalp, people can learn to gain control of movement," said clinical neurologist Jonathan R. Wolpaw, who spent the last decade developing the experimental system with psychologist Dennis J. McFarland. "They can achieve impressively accurate and rapid control. It may not be necessary to stick something into the brain."

In order to capture the proper neural signals, the researchers needed only to position the electrodes around the general location of the brain's sensory motor cortex. The computer software was designed to adapt to the patient's increasing ability to move the cursor.

So far, three men and a woman have tested the system. Two of the volunteers had spinal cord injuries that confined them to wheelchairs. They appeared to master the technique more quickly than the others, Wolpaw said.

Even so, it is no panacea, Wolpaw cautioned.

The device required considerable practice, he said, and for the foreseeable future, the close supervision of an experienced scientist.

The volunteers needed more than five weeks of regular lessons to master the basics of the technique, then hours more in practice sessions to refine their new ability.

The team has wasted no time in refining the technique. Collaborating with a research group in Germany, they have enlisted additional patients who are being trained in its use.

"Everyone is rooting for the noninvasive stuff to be as useful as possible because that is what would be most helpful to most people," said John Chapin, director of the SUNY center for neurorobotics and neuroengineering. "The kind of patient who would benefit from invasive [implants] is a very, very sick patient."

In its current state, Chapin said, the new noninvasive technique enabled movement in just two dimensions - up and down and side to side - certainly adequate for a computer cursor but short of the full range of movement required by a robotic arm or prosthetic leg.

"The future," Chapin said, "is going to be some combination of the two."

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #98 on: February 01, 2008, 10:15:20 AM »
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Today, the Center for American Progress hosted a panel titled "Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense." CAP Senior Fellow Jonathan Moreno, Ph.D. gave a run down on his book and fellow panelist Jennifer Bard, a law professor at Texas Tech University, gave a legal analysis of advances in neuroscience research as applied to real life situations.

The most shocking comment came from panelist Paul Root Wolpe, Ph.D. when he said that it "is realistic that in ten to fifteen years, it could be possible to directly connect the human brain to the internet." He cited current research where neuroscientists are able to bypass lesions in the brain by connecting two sections of the brain by man made circuitry.

Despite such an earth shaking advancement being possibly a decade away, there exists no body of ethical oversight OR laws governing such research. The biggest sponsor of this type of research is the Federal Government, often funding scientific studies through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA.

Techniques currently in development include functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or fMRI. It takes pictures of brain activity in real time and is being used to learn reactions of the brain to figure out if someone is lying, their sexual orientation, if they have racist tendencies, if they are extroverted, and countless other things. It is the closest that we have come to "mind reading."

DARPA is funding an "Enhanced Human Performance" project. Augmenting cognition, or increasing brain function, is one of the goals of this project. This can be accomplished by inserting a chip in a soldier's brain and increasing the bandwidth of brain activity.

The drug Modanafil has also been developed and can keep people awake for days at a time without the need for sleep or calories. This has already been made available in the private sector under the name Provigil.

This barely scratches the surface of an emerging issue about which the Center for American Progress hopes to begin a public discussion. The potential implications of this issue on civil liberties is enormous. It warrants much scrutiny until acceptable legal and ethical standards are created. There should also be a balance between using these new advances for national defense and using it in the private sector where it can be used to improve the lives of everyday Americans.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #99 on: February 01, 2008, 10:16:11 AM »
Microchips everywhere: A future vision
The Associated Press
Saturday, January 26, 2008; 12:16 PM

Here's a vision of the not-so-distant future:

Microchips with antennas will be embedded in virtually everything you buy, wear, drive and read, allowing retailers and law enforcement to track consumer items — and, by extension, consumers — wherever they go, from a distance.

A seamless, global network of electronic "sniffers" will scan radio tags in myriad public settings, identifying people and their tastes instantly so that customized ads, "live spam," may be beamed at them.

In "Smart Homes," sensors built into walls, floors and appliances will inventory possessions, record eating habits, monitor medicine cabinets — all the while, silently reporting data to marketers eager for a peek into the occupants' private lives.

Science fiction?

In truth, much of the radio frequency identification technology that enables objects and people to be tagged and tracked wirelessly already exists — and new and potentially intrusive uses of it are being patented, perfected and deployed.

Some of the world's largest corporations are vested in the success of RFID technology, which couples highly miniaturized computers with radio antennas to broadcast information about sales and buyers to company databases.

Already, microchips are turning up in some computer printers, car keys and tires, on shampoo bottles and department store clothing tags. They're also in library books and "contactless" payment cards (such as American Express' "Blue" and ExxonMobil's "Speedpass.")

Companies say the RFID tags improve supply-chain efficiency, cut theft, and guarantee that brand-name products are authentic, not counterfeit. At a store, RFID doorways could scan your purchases automatically as you leave, eliminating tedious checkouts.

At home, convenience is a selling point: RFID-enabled refrigerators could warn about expired milk, generate weekly shopping lists, even send signals to your interactive TV, so that you see "personalized" commercials for foods you have a history of buying. Sniffers in your microwave might read a chip-equipped TV dinner and cook it without instruction.

"We've seen so many different uses of the technology," says Dan Mullen, president of AIM Global, a national association of data collection businesses, including RFID, "and we're probably still just scratching the surface in terms of places RFID can be used."

The problem, critics say, is that microchipped products might very well do a whole lot more.

With tags in so many objects, relaying information to databases that can be linked to credit and bank cards, almost no aspect of life may soon be safe from the prying eyes of corporations and governments, says Mark Rasch, former head of the computer-crime unit of the U.S. Justice Department.

By placing sniffers in strategic areas, companies can invisibly "rifle through people's pockets, purses, suitcases, briefcases, luggage — and possibly their kitchens and bedrooms — anytime of the day or night," says Rasch, now managing director of technology at FTI Consulting Inc., a Baltimore-based company.

In an RFID world, "You've got the possibility of unauthorized people learning stuff about who you are, what you've bought, how and where you've bought it ... It's like saying, 'Well, who wants to look through my medicine cabinet?'"

He imagines a time when anyone from police to identity thieves to stalkers might scan locked car trunks, garages or home offices from a distance. "Think of it as a high-tech form of Dumpster diving," says Rasch, who's also concerned about data gathered by "spy" appliances in the home.

"It's going to be used in unintended ways by third parties — not just the government, but private investigators, marketers, lawyers building a case against you ..."


Presently, the radio tag most commercialized in America is the so-called "passive" emitter, meaning it has no internal power supply. Only when a reader powers these tags with a squirt of electrons do they broadcast their signal, indiscriminately, within a range of a few inches to 20 feet.

Not as common, but increasing in use, are "active" tags, which have internal batteries and can transmit signals, continuously, as far as low-orbiting satellites. Active tags pay tolls as motorists to zip through tollgates; they also track wildlife, such as sea lions.

Retailers and manufacturers want to use passive tags to replace the bar code, for tracking inventory. These radio tags transmit Electronic Product Codes, number strings that allow trillons of objects to be uniquely identified. Some transmit specifics about the item, such as price, though not the name of the buyer.

However, "once a tagged item is associated with a particular individual, personally identifiable information can be obtained and then aggregated to develop a profile," the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded in a 2005 report on RFID.

Federal agencies and law enforcement already buy information about individuals from commercial data brokers, companies that compile computer dossiers on millions of individuals from public records, credit applications and many other sources, then offer summaries for sale. These brokers, unlike credit bureaus, aren't subject to provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, which gives consumers the right to correct errors and block access to their personal records.

That, and the ever-increasing volume of data collected on consumers, is worrisome, says Mike Hrabik, chief technology officer at Solutionary, a computer-security firm in Bethesda, Md. "Are companies using that information incorrectly, and are they giving it out inappropriately? I'm sure that's happening. Should we be concerned? Yes."

Even some industry proponents recognize risks. Elliott Maxwell, a research fellow at Pennsylvania State University who serves as a policy adviser to EPCglobal, the industry's standard-setting group, says data broadcast by microchips can easily be intercepted, and misused, by high-tech thieves.

As RFID goes mainstream and the range of readers increases, it will be "difficult to know who is gathering what data, who has access to it, what is being done with it, and who should be held responsible for it," Maxwell wrote in RFID Journal, an industry publication.

The recent growth of the RFID industry has been staggering: From 1955 to 2005, cumulative sales of radio tags totaled 2.4 billion; last year alone, 2.24 billion tags were sold worldwide, and analysts project that by 2017 cumulative sales will top 1 trillion — generating more than $25 billion in annual revenues for the industry.

Heady forecasts like these energize chip proponents, who insist that RFID will result in enormous savings for businesses. Each year, retailers lose $57 billion from administrative failures, supplier fraud and employee theft, according to a recent survey of 820 retailers by Checkpoint Systems, an RFID manufacturer that specializes in store security devices.

Privacy concerns, some RFID supporters say, are overblown. One, Mark Roberti, editor of RFID Journal, says the notion that businesses would conspire to create high-resolution portraits of people is "simply silly."

Corporations know Americans are sensitive about their privacy, he says, and are careful not to alienate consumers by violating it. Besides, "All companies keep their customer data close to the vest ... There's absolutely no value in sharing it. Zero."

Industry officials, too, insist that addressing privacy concerns is paramount. As American Express spokeswoman Judy Tenzer says, "Security and privacy are a top priority for American Express in everything we do."

But industry documents suggest a different line of thinking, privacy experts say.

A 2005 patent application by American Express itself describes how RFID-embedded objects carried by shoppers could emit "identification signals" when queried by electronic "consumer trackers." The system could identify people, record their movements, and send them video ads that might offer "incentives" or "even the emission of a scent."

RFID readers could be placed in public venues, including "a common area of a school, shopping center, bus station or other place of public accommodation," according to the application, which is still pending — and which is not alone.

In 2006, IBM received patent approval for an invention it called, "Identification and tracking of persons using RFID-tagged items." One stated purpose: To collect information about people that could be "used to monitor the movement of the person through the store or other areas."

Once somebody enters a store, a sniffer "scans all identifiable RFID tags carried on the person," and correlates the tag information with sales records to determine the individual's "exact identity." A device known as a "person tracking unit" then assigns a tracking number to the shopper "to monitor the movement of the person through the store or other areas."

But as the patent makes clear, IBM's invention could work in other public places, "such as shopping malls, airports, train stations, bus stations, elevators, trains, airplanes, restrooms, sports arenas, libraries, theaters, museums, etc." (RFID could even help "follow a particular crime suspect through public areas.")

Another patent, obtained in 2003 by NCR Corp., details how camouflaged sensors and cameras would record customers' wanderings through a store, film their facial expressions at displays, and time — to the second — how long shoppers hold and study items.

Why? Such monitoring "allows one to draw valuable inferences about the behavior of large numbers of shoppers," the patent states.

Then there's a 2001 patent application by Procter & Gamble, "Systems and methods for tracking consumers in a store environment." This one lays out an idea to use heat sensors to track and record "where a consumer is looking, i.e., which way she is facing, whether she is bending over or crouching down to look at a lower shelf."

The system could space sensors 8 feet apart, in ceilings, floors, shelving and displays, so they could capture signals transmitted every 1.5 seconds by microchipped shopping carts.

The documents "raise the hair on the back of your neck," says Liz McIntyre, co-author of "Spychips," a book that is critical of the industry. "The industry has long promised it would never use this technology to track people. But these patent records clearly suggest otherwise."

Corporations take issue with that, saying that patent filings shouldn't be used to predict a company's actions.

"We file thousands of patents every year, which are designed to protect concepts or ideas," Paul Fox, a spokesman for Procter & Gamble, says. "The reality is that many of those ideas and concepts never see the light of day."

And what of his company's 2001 patent application? "I'm not aware of any plans to use that," Fox says.

Sandy Hughes, P&G's global privacy executive, adds that Procter & Gamble has no intention of using any technologies — RFID or otherwise — to track individuals. The idea of the 2001 filing, she says, is to monitor how groups of people react to store displays, "not individual consumers."

NCR and American Express echoed those statements. IBM declined to comment for this story.

"Not every element in a patent filing is necessarily something we would pursue....," says Tenzer, the American Express spokeswoman. "Under no circumstances would we use this technology without a customer's permission."

McIntyre has her doubts.

In the marketing world of today, she says, "data on individual consumers is gold, and the only thing preventing these companies from abusing technologies like RFID to get at that gold is public scrutiny."

RFID dates to World War II, when Britain put transponders in Allied aircraft to help radar crews distinguish them from German fighters. In the 1970s, the U.S. government tagged trucks entering and leaving secure facilities such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and a decade later, they were used to track livestock and railroad cars.

In 2003, the U.S. Department of Defense and Wal-Mart gave RFID a mammoth push, mandating that suppliers radio tag all crates and cartons. To that point, the cost of tags had simply been too high to make tagging pallets — let alone individual items — viable. In 1999, passive tags cost nearly $2 apiece.

Since then, rising demand and production of microchips — along with technological advances — have driven tag prices down to a range of 7 to 15 cents. At that price, the technology is "well-suited at a case and pallet level," says Mullen, of the industry group AIM Global.

John Simley, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, says tracking products in real-time helps ensure product freshness and lowers the chances that items will be out of stock. By reducing loss and waste in the supply chain, RFID "allows us to keep our prices that much lower."

Katherine Albrecht, founder of CASPIAN, an anti-RFID group, says, "Nobody cares about radio tags on crates and pallets. But if we don't keep RFID off of individual consumer items, our stores will one day turn into retail 'zoos' where the customer is always on exhibit."

So, how long will it be before you find an RFID tag in your underwear? The industry isn't saying, but some analysts speculate that within a decade tag costs may dip below a penny, the threshold at which nearly everything could be chipped.

To businesses slammed by counterfeiters — pharmaceuticals, for one — that's not a bad thing. Sales of fake drugs cost drug makers an estimated $46 billion a year. In 2004, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended that RFID be incorporated throughout the supply chain as a way of making sure consumers get authentic drugs.

In the United States, Pfizer has already begun chipping all 30- and 100-count bottles of Viagra, one of the most counterfeited drugs.

Chips could be embedded in other controlled or potentially dangerous items such as firearms and explosives, to make them easier to track. This was mentioned in IBM's patent documents.

Still, the idea that tiny radio chips might be in their socks and shoes doesn't sit well with Americans. At least, that's what Fleishman-Hillard Inc., a public-relations firm in St. Louis, found in 2001 when it surveyed 317 consumers for the industry.

Seventy-eight percent of those queried reacted negatively to RFID when privacy was raised. "More than half claimed to be extremely or very concerned," the report said, noting that the term "Big Brother" was "used in 15 separate cases to describe the technology."

It also found that people bridled at the idea of having "Smart Tags" in their homes. One surveyed person remarked: "Where money is to be made the privacy of the individual will be compromised."

In 2002, Fleishman-Hillard produced another report for the industry that counseled RFID makers to "convey (the) inevitability of technology," and to develop a plan to "neutralize the opposition," by adopting friendlier names for radio tags such as "Bar Code II" and "Green Tag."

And in a 2003 report, Helen Duce, the industry's trade group director in Europe, wrote that "the lack of clear benefits to consumers could present a problem in the 'real world,'" particularly if privacy issues were stirred by "negative press coverage."

(Though the reports were marked "Confidential," they were later found archived on an industry trade group's Web site.)

The Duce report's recommendations: Tell consumers that RFID is regulated, that RFID is just a new and improved bar code, and that retailers will announce when an item is radio tagged, and deactivate the tags at check-out upon a customer's request.

Actually, in the United States, RFID is not federally regulated. And while bar codes identify product categories, radio tags carry unique serial numbers that — when purchased with a credit card, frequent shopper card or contactless card — can be linked to specific shoppers.

And, unlike bar codes, RFID tags can be read through almost anything except metal and water, without the holder's knowledge.

EPCglobal, the industry's standard-setting body, has issued public policy guidelines that call for retailers to put a thumbnail-sized logo — "EPC," for Electronic Product Code — on all radio tagged packaging. The group also suggests that merchants notify shoppers that RFID tags can be removed, discarded or disabled.

Critics say the guidelines are voluntary, vague and don't penalize violators. They want federal and state oversight — something the industry has vigorously opposed — particularly after two RFID manufacturers, Checkpoint Systems and Sensormatic, announced last year that they are marketing tags designed to be embedded in such items as shoes.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, says, "I don't think there's any basis ... for consumers to have to think that their clothing is tracking them."


On the Web:

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #100 on: February 01, 2008, 10:16:53 AM »
RFID Panopticon
Kurt Nimmo
January 26, 2008

TL2_Surveillance, ID cards, and the Panopticon (1min 54s)

It’s sold in the Washington Post (see above article) — the CIA’s favorite newspaper — as a wonderful world of convenience come true for consumers:

“RFID-enabled refrigerators could warn about expired milk, generate weekly shopping lists, even send signals to your interactive TV, so that you see ‘personalized’ commercials for foods you have a history of buying. Sniffers in your microwave might read a chip-equipped TV dinner and cook it without instruction… Companies say the RFID tags improve supply-chain efficiency, cut theft, and guarantee that brand-name products are authentic, not counterfeit. At a store, RFID doorways could scan your purchases automatically as you leave, eliminating tedious checkouts.”

Excuse me, but I’ll take the tedium.

The problem, critics say, is that microchipped products might very well do a whole lot more.

With tags in so many objects, relaying information to databases that can be linked to credit and bank cards, almost no aspect of life may soon be safe from the prying eyes of corporations and governments, says Mark Rasch, former head of the computer-crime unit of the U.S. Justice Department.

IBM RFID Checkout in Supermarket (30s)

By placing sniffers in strategic areas, companies can invisibly “rifle through people’s pockets, purses, suitcases, briefcases, luggage — and possibly their kitchens and bedrooms — anytime of the day or night,” says Rasch, now managing director of technology at FTI Consulting Inc., a Baltimore-based company.

In an RFID world, “You’ve got the possibility of unauthorized people learning stuff about who you are, what you’ve bought, how and where you’ve bought it … It’s like saying, ‘Well, who wants to look through my medicine cabinet?’”

He imagines a time when anyone from police to identity thieves to stalkers might scan locked car trunks, garages or home offices from a distance. “Think of it as a high-tech form of Dumpster diving,” says Rasch, who’s also concerned about data gathered by “spy” appliances in the home.

Forget identity thieves and stalkers — a distinct minority — and worry about the government using this technology, not to discover what’s in your medicine cabinet per se — by way of HIPAA and Section 215 of the Patriot Act, they may already know this — but rather to keep track of pesky enemies of the state, or would-be enemies of the state, the sort who actually believe they have a right to challenge the government, or even mildly petition it.

For autocrats, a world embedded with a constellation of ubiquitous RFID sensors would be ideal. “A Panopticon Singularity is the logical outcome if the burgeoning technologies of the singularity are funneled into automating law enforcement,” writes Charlie Stross. “Previous police states were limited by manpower, but the panopticon singularity substitutes technology, and ultimately replaces human conscience with a brilliant but merciless prosthesis.”

Warning!!! Big Brother is watching you. RFID Implant (9mins 35s)

As Stross notes, the state will use this technology to go after the malcontents and troublemakers, but they will also use it against pedestrian criminals, those minus political persuasion:

If a panopticon singularity emerges, you’d be well advised to stay away from Massachusetts if you and your partner aren’t married. Don’t think about smoking a joint unless you want to see the inside of one of the labor camps where over 50% of the population sooner or later go. Don’t jaywalk, chew gum in public, smoke, exceed the speed limit, stand in front of fire exit routes, or wear clothing that violates the city dress code (passed on the nod in 1892, and never repealed because everybody knew nobody would enforce it and it would take up valuable legislative time). You won’t be able to watch those old DVD’s of ‘Friends’ you copied during the naughty oughties because if you stick them in your player it’ll call the copyright police on you. You’d better not spend too much time at the bar, or your insurance premiums will rocket and your boss might ask you to undergo therapy. You might be able to read a library book or play a round of a computer game, but your computer will be counting the words you read and monitoring your pulse so that it can bill you for the excitement it has delivered.

In a totalitarian society we “are all criminals,” or at least easy marks ready to be fleeced by a sociopathic elite.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #101 on: February 01, 2008, 10:17:14 AM »
"Boosting Our Gray Matter" - Business Week Magazine, August 2007

Alternative download link

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #102 on: February 01, 2008, 10:17:50 AM »
Invisible RFID Ink Safe For Cattle And People, Company Says
The process developed by Somark involves a geometric array of micro-needles and an ink capsule, which is used to 'tattoo' an animal. The ink can be detected from 4 feet away.

By K.C. Jones
January 10, 2007 04:49 PM

A startup company developing chipless RFID ink has tested its product on cattle and laboratory rats.

Somark Innovations announced this week that it successfully tested biocompatible RFID ink, which can be read through animal hairs. The passive RFID technology could be used to identify and track cows to reduce financial losses from Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease) scares. Somark, which formed in 2005, is located at the Center for Emerging Technologies in St. Louis. The company is raising Series A equity financing and plans to license the technology to secondary markets, which could include laboratory animals, dogs, cats, prime cuts of meat, and military personnel.

Chief scientist Ramos Mays said the tests provide a true proof-of-principle and mitigate most of the technological risks in terms of the product's performance. "This proves the ability to create a synthetic biometric or fake fingerprint with biocompatible, chipless RFID ink and read it through hair," he said.

Co-founder Mark Pydynowski said during an interview Wednesday that the ink doesn't contain any metals and can be either invisible or colored. He declined to say what is in the ink, but said he's certain that it is 100% biocompatible and chemically inert. He also said it is safe for people and animals.

The process developed by Somark involves a geometric array of micro-needles and a reusable applicator with a one-time-use ink capsule. Pydynowski said it takes five to 10 seconds to "stamp or tattoo" an animal, and there is no need to remove the fur. The ink remains in the dermal layer, and a reader can detect it from 4 feet away.

"Conceptually, you can think of it in the same way that visible light is reflected by mirrors," he said, adding that the actual process is slightly different and proprietary.

The amount of information contained in the ink depends on the surface area available, he said. The U.S. Department of Agriculture calls for a 15-digit number to track cattle. The first three digits are "840" for the U.S. country code. The remaining digits are unique identifiers. The numbers would link to a database containing more information.

"It can say where it has been, who it has talked to, who it has eaten with, and who else it has been in contact with," Pydynowski said.

Ranchers and others in the agricultural industry can choose a covert stamping system, which would make it impossible for cattle thieves to tell which animals have been marked and easy for those checking for stolen cattle to determine a cow's source. Pydynowski said the technology is an improvement over ear tags, which can be detached from cows and other products.

The technology could verify that cuts of meat originated in a hormone-free environment, Pydynowski said, adding that consumers would destroy the system by breaking down the ink when chewing the meat. In other words, Big Brother wouldn't know whether someone ate a Big Mac or a filet mignon, according to Pydynowski's explanation. However, the government and agricultural producers and retailers could track e-coli outbreaks in spinach, he said.

The ink also could be used to track and rescue soldiers, Pydynowski said.

"It could help identify friends or foes, prevent friendly fire, and help save soldiers' lives," he said. "It's a very scary proposition when you're dealing with humans, but with military personnel, we're talking about saving soldiers' lives and it may be something worthwhile."

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #103 on: February 01, 2008, 10:30:27 AM »
The RFID tagging of consumer products is an important step in this agenda.  Here Dr Katherine Albrecht discusses what RFID tagging is, how it works and what it means for our rights to privacy, for example:


November 2005: Katherine Albrecht Talks Consumer Privacy & RFID, with Laurie Sullivan
Part 1
Part 2

The RFID issue is very much tied in to the microchip agenda.  It is just a stepping stone along the way to mass microchipping.


Katherine Albrecht - Big Brother, The Chip and the Mark of The Beast (4mins 21s)

RFID: Tracking Everything Part 1 of 7

RFID: Tracking Everything Part 2 of 7

RFID: Tracking Everything Part 3 of 7

RFID: Tracking Everything Part 4 of 7

RFID: Tracking Everything Part 5 of 7

RFID: Tracking Everything Part 6 of 7

RFID: Tracking Everything Part 7 of 7


RFID: The Battleground (2005) Part 1

RFID: The Battleground (2005) Part 2

RFID: The Battleground (2005) Part 3

RFID: The Battleground (2005) Part 4

RFID: The Battleground (2005) Part 5

Albrecht's keynote address at the November 2003 MIT RFID Privacy Workshop.
(You can click on the third button down to see only Albrecht's contribution.)


And here is yet another example of the conditioning from the mainstream media:
cbc PROMOTES chip implants (2mins 10s)

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #104 on: March 09, 2008, 10:59:02 PM »

Brain Implants

Direct neural control of complex machines is a long-term U.S. military goal. DARPA has a brain-machine interface program aimed at creating next-generation wireless interfaces between neural systems and, initially, prosthetics and other biomedical devices.
— Rodney Brooks, “Toward a Brain-Internet Link,” WirelessNewsFactor, 10 Dec 2003.

In a Kurzweillian future, the world would become a very strange place, where converging advances in nanotechnology, biotechnology and computer science combine to propel humanity to its next stage of evolution. “By the end of this century, I don't think there will be a clear distinction between human and machine,” Kurzweil told the Foresight Institute’s Eighth Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology.1

[By 1969,] the miracle of giving light to the blind i, ii, iii, iv or sound to the deaf ha[d] been made possible by implantation of electrodes, demonstrating the technical possibility of circumventing damaged sensory receptors by direct electrical stimulation of the nervous system.2 Computers that become part of our bodies are not so far-fetched.… Surgeons have performed [more than 50,000 3] cochlear implants on patients with hearing loss.v “These people are already walking around with chips in their heads,” [Peter Cochrane, head of research at British Telecommunications PLC,] says.4

Giving completely paralyzed patients full mental control of robotic limbs or communication devices has long been a dream of those working to free such individuals from their locked-in state.5 There is little doubt that direct brain-machine interfaces will be available in the very near future.6

Researchers at the University School of Medicine in Philadelphia demonstrated that signals from neuron groupings in rats brains can be used to control a physical device without the rats carrying out a physical action themselves.7 “This study breaks new ground in several areas,” said Dr. Eberhard Fetz, Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington School of Medicine, who authored a commentary on the research in the “News and Views” section of Nature Neuroscience. “Unlike comparable studies, this is the first demonstration to prove that simultaneous recordings from large ensembles of neurons can be converted in real time and online to control an external device. Extracting signals directly from the brain to control robotic devices has been a science fiction theme that seems destined to become fact.” 8

[Miguel Nicolelis and colleagues] at Duke University in North Carolina wired monkey brains to control robotic arms that mimicked the motions of their real arms (another search; see also another similar study).9 “It was an amazing sight to see the robot in my lab move, knowing that it was being driven by signals from a monkey brain at Duke,” said [Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s] Touch Lab director and co-researcher Mandayam Srinivasan. “It was as if the monkey had a 600-mile- (950-km-) long virtual arm.”10

John P. Donoghue, a neuroscientist at Brown University developing a similar system, said paralyzed patients would be the first to benefit by gaining an ability to type and communicate on the Web, but the list of potential applications is endless, he said. The devices may even allow quadriplegics to move their own limbs again by sending signals from the brain to various muscles, leaping over the severed nerves that caused their paralysis.…

Both he and Nicolelis hope to get permission from the Food and Drug Administration to begin experiments in people [in 2004]. Nicolelis also is developing a system that would transmit signals from each of the hundreds of brain electrodes to a portable receiver, so his monkeys — or human subjects — could be free of external wires and move around while they turn their thoughts into mechanical actions.11

Scientists say they have developed a technology that enables a monkey to move a cursor on a computer screen simply by thinking about it.… Using high-tech brain scans, the researchers determined that [a] small clump[] of cells…were active in the formation of the desire to carry out specific body movements. Armed with this knowledge, [researchers at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena] implanted sensitive electrodes in the posterior parietal cortex of a rhesus monkey trained to play a simple video game.… A computer program, hooked up to the implanted electrodes,…then moved a cursor on the computer screen in accordance with the monkey’s desires — left or right, up or down, wherever “the electrical (brain) patterns tells us the monkey is planning to reach,” according to [researcher Daniella] Meeker.12 [Dr. William Heetderks, director of the neural prosthesis program at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke,] believes that the path to long-lasting implants in people would involve the recording of data from many electrodes. “To get a rich signal that allows you to move a limb in three-dimensional space or move a cursor around on a screen will require the ability to record from at least 30 neurons,” he said.13

Dr. Philip R. Kennedy, an [sic] clinical assistant professor of neurology at Emory University in Georgia, reported that a paralyzed man was able to control a cursor with a cone-shaped, glass implant (See also another similar study).14 Each [neurotrophic electrode] consists of a hollow glass cone about the size of a ball-point pen tip.15 The implants…contain an electrode that picks up impulses from the nerve endings. Before they are implanted, the cones are coated with chemicals — taken from tissue inside the patients’ own knees — to encourage nerve growth. The implants are then placed in the brain’s motor cortex — which controls body movement — and over the course of the next few months the chemicals encourage nerve cells to grow and attach to the electrodes. A transmitter just inside the skull picks up signals from the cones and translates these into cursor commands on the computer.16

Scientists at Northwestern University crafted a two-wheeled robot that operated partly on the electrical signals of a displaced lamprey’s brain (pic, video).17 The part of the brain used in the experiment normally keeps the lamprey upright in the water. When connected up correctly, the organ can guide the robot towards a light source.18

Scientists at the University of Tokyo are exploring ways that la cucaracha can become more socially redeeming. Using hardy American roaches, scientists remove their wings, insert electrodes in their antennae (more pics, schematics) and affix a tiny backpack of electric circuits and batteries to their carapace. The electrodes prod them to turn left and right, go backward and forward. The plan is to equip them with minicameras or other sensory devices.19, vi [Later that same year, the motion picture The Fifth Element (1997) featured a remote-controlled cockroach equipped with a camera.]

Scientists at the Max Planck Institute have…demonstrated electronic-based neuron transistors that can control the movement of a live leech from a computer. They can detect the firing of a nearby neuron, cause it to fire, or suppress a neuron from firing — all of which amounts to two-way communication between neurons and neuron transistors.20

Rats steered by a computer…could soon help find buried earthquake victims or dispose of bombs, scientists said [1 May 2002]. The remote-controlled “roborats” (more pics, audio, video) can be made to run, climb, jump or turn left and right through electrical probes, the width of a hair, implanted in their brains. Movement signals are transmitted from a computer to the rat’s brain via a radio receiver strapped to its back. One electrode stimulates the “feelgood” center of the rat’s brain, while two other electrodes activate the cerebral regions which process signals from its left and right whiskers.21 “They work for pleasure,” says Sanjiv Talwar, the bioengineer at the State University of New York who led the research team.… “The rat feels nirvana.” 22 Asked to speculate on potential military uses for robotic animals, Dr Talwar agreed they could, in theory, be put to some unpleasant uses, such as assassination.23

[In February 2007, scientists at the Robot Engineering Technology Research Centre at Shandong University of Science and Technology in China announced they had created remote-controlled pigeons (pic) after having had similar success implanting mice in 2005. Their next step is to improve the technology for practical use.]

A team of US scientists have wired a computer to a cat’s brain and created videos of what the animal was seeing. By recording the electrical activity of nerve cells in the thalamus, a region of the brain that receives signals from the eyes, researchers from the University of California at Berkeley were able to view these shapes.… They recorded the output from 177 brain cells that responded to light and dark in the cat's field of view. In total, the 177 cells were sensitive to a field of view of 6.4 by 6.4 degrees.… In the cat’s brain, as in ours, the signals from the thalamus cells undergo considerable signal processing in the higher regions of the brain that improve the quality of the image that is perceived. Taking an image from a region of the brain before this image enhancement has taken place will result in a poorer image than the cat is able to see.… Given time, it will be possible to record what one person sees and “play it back” to someone else either as it is happening or at a later date.24, vii

In 1870, two German researchers named [Eduard] Hitzig and [Gustav] Fritsch electrically stimulated the brains of dogs, demonstrating that certain portions of the brain were the centers of motor function. The American Dr. Robert Bartholow, within four years, demonstrated that the same was true of human beings. By the turn of the [twentieth] century in Germany Fedor Krause was able to do a systematic electrical mapping of the human brain, using conscious patients undergoing brain surgery [Morgan, James P., “The First Reported Case of Electrical Stimulation of the Human Brain,” Journal of History of Medicine at; Zimmerman, M., “Electrical Stimulation of the Human Brain,” Human Neurobiology, 1982].

Another early researcher into electrical stimulation of the brain was Walter Rudolf Hess, who began research into ESB in the 1930s, jolting patients’ brains with shocks administered through tiny needles that pierced the skull.25 His experiments [also] included the insertion of fine electrically conductive wires into the brains of anaesthetized cats. To noone’s great surprise, given mild electrical stimulation the cats went beserk [Vance Packard, The People Shapers (New York: Bantam Books, 1977); “Hess, Walter Rudolf,” Encyclopedia Americana (New York: Harper & Row, 1969); “Hess, Walter Rudolph,” Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Inc., 1973)].26

During the decades of the 1940s and 1950s, Wilder Penfield…experimented with electrical brain stimulation on patients undergoing surgery. One of Penfield’s discoveries was that the application of electricity on alert patients could stimulate the memory of past events [Project Open Mind] (full pic, video).

Since 1949, the Tulane University Department of Psychiatry and Neurology has done experimentation in the implantation of electrodes into patients’ brains. According to one of their staff-generated reports, “By implantation of electrodes into various predetermined specific brain sites of patients capable of reporting thoughts and feelings, we have been able to make invaluable long-term observations…” [“Stereotaxic Implantation of Electrodes in the Human Brain: A Method for Long-Term Study and Treatment,” Heath, John, Fontana, Department of Psychiatry and Neurology, Tulane University School of Medicine].

Other early researchers into direct brain stimulation were Robert G. Heath…and his associate, Dr. Russell Monroe. Beginning in 1950, with funding from the CIA and the military, among other sources, they implanted as many as 125 electrodes into subjects’ brains, and also experimented by injecting a wide variety of drugs directly into the brain tissue through small tubes; these drugs included LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline. One of Heath’s memorable suggestions was that lobotomy should be used on subjects, not as a therapeutic measure, but for the convenience of the staff [Heath, Robert G. Undated interview in Omni; Cannon, Martin, “Mind Control and the American Government,” Prevailing Winds, 1994; Human Rights Law Journal, “Freedom of the Mind as an International Human Rights Issue,” Vol. 3, No. 1-4; Ross, M.D., Dr. Colin, “The CIA and Military Mind Control Research: Building the Manchurian Candidate,” lecture given at Ninth Annual Western Clinical Conference on Trauma and Dissociation, April 18, 1996].27 Heath of Tulane University, who pioneered the electrical stimulation of human brains, has equipped dangerously aggressive mental patients with self-stimulators. A film shows a patient working himself out of a violent mood by pushing his stimulator button.28

In 1956, James Olds (pic) reported on research in which he had electrically stimulated the brains of rats. Implanting electrodes in rats’ pleasure center of the brain, he attached a device that allowed the rats to activate the electrical impulse. He found that the rats would become so obsessed with self-stimulation that they would literally starve themselves to death.29 Very similar results have since been achieved replacing rats with monkeys.30

Jose Delgado, funded by Yale University, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the U.S. Air Force 6571st Aeromedical Research Laboratory, and other institutions, and linked to Spanish fascist groups by researcher John Judge,31…is the man who perfected the stimoceiver [or ‘transdermal stimulator’], a tiny electronic device that is implanted into the brains of humans and animals, and is used to transmit electrical impulses directly to the brain [Delgado, Jose, Physical Control of the Mind (New York: Harper & Row, 1969); and Judge, John, “The Secret Government,” Dharma Combat number 10].32

Delgado, in a series of experiments terrifying in their human potential, implanted electrodes in the skull of a bull. Waving a red cape, Delgado provoked the animal to charge. Then, with a signal emitted from a tiny hand-held radio transmitter, he made the beast turn aside in mid-lunge and trot docilely away.33 He has [also] been able to “play” monkeys and cats like “little electronic toys” that yawn, hide, fight, play, mate and go to sleepviii on command.34 The individual is defenseless against direct manipulation of the brain [Delgado, Physical Control].35

The open publication of Delgado’s book Physical Control of the Mind met with a decidedly cool reaction from the public, and this may have warned other researchers in the field to keep quiet about the subject. To this day, Delgado’s is the only popular book on the subject of implants and electrical stimulation of the brain.36

During the latter days of MKULTRA research, a CIA memorandum, dated 22 November, 1961, announced, “Initial biological work on techniques and brain locations essential to providing conditioning and control of animals has been completed. The feasibility of remote control of activities in several species of animals has been demonstrated.… The ultimate objective of this research is to provide an understanding of the mechanisms involved in the directional control of animals and to provide practical systems suitable for human application.” 37

Later breakthroughs in technology were documented in “Two-Way Transdermal Communication with the Brain,” published in 1975. By this time Delgado had linked his brain implants with computers. The monograph records,

The most interesting aspect of the transdermal stimoceivers is the ability to perform simultaneous recording and stimulation of brain functions, thereby permitting the establishment of feedbacks and ‘on-demand’ programs of excitation with the aid of the computer. With the increasing sophistication and miniaturization of electronics, it may be possible to compress the necessary circuitry for a small computer into a chip that is implantable subcutaneously. In this way, a new self-contained instrument could be devised, capable of receiving, analyzing, and sending back information to the brain, establishing artificial links between unrelated cerebral areas, functional feedbacks, and programs of stimulation contingent on the appearance of pre-determined patterns
[Delgado, Lipponen, Weiss, del Pozo, Monteagudo, and McMahon, “Two-Way Transdermal Communication with the Brain,” a co-operative publication of the Medical University of Madrid, Spain, and Yale University Medical School, 1975].38

Many popular articles on Delgado intend us to think that his primary purpose was the rehabilitation of the mentally and physically sick. This does not happen to be the case. Delgado was a blatant control freak. An example is Delgado’s experimentation on changing the social orientation of animals. One staging area for this experimentation was an island in the Bermudas, where Delgado maintained a free-roving population of gibbons with electronic implants, using electrical brain boosts to build and destroy social orders among those primates as if he was knocking down a row of dominoes [Packard, People Shapers].39

Although well cited, Delgado’s practical results on humans were extremely limited,ix as most of his research was either merely stated without a results base, or has been reported on second hand.… Reports have been made on his work on the ‘Pandora Project’, which involved modulating electromagnetic fields to a soldier’s head so that the soldier would lose self-control on the battle field. Reports also include how work was carried out to induce schizophrenia artificially through electrical stimulation of the septal zone in the human brain.40

Always a visionary in the Orwellian mold, Delgado said, “Looking into the future, it may be predicted that telerecording and telestimulation of the brain will be widely used” [Delgado, Jose, “Radio Stimulation of the Brain in Primates and Man,” New Haven, Connecticut: Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, 1969].41 He has urged the U.S. government to make “control of the mind” a national goal.42

Another researcher who specialized in brain implants is Dr. Stuart Mackay, who in 1968 penned a textbook titled Bio-Medical Telemetry. Mackay reported, “Among the many telemetry instruments being used today are miniature radio transmitters that can be swallowed, carried externally, or surgically implanted in man or animal. They permit the simultaneous study of behaviour and physiological functioning. The scope of observations is too broad to more than hint at a few examples. The possibilities are limited only by the imagination of the investigator” [Dr. Stuart Mackay, cited in Glenn Krawcyzyk, “Mind Control Techniques and Tactics of the New World Order,” Nexus, Dec-Jan 1993].43

By 1994, the London Times estimated that in the previous decade there had been 15,000 cases of persons being implanted with electronic brain devices. It is impossible to know if the Times estimate is at all accurate, since it is unlikely that they would be privy to statistics of secret testing. Certainly, most anti-mind control activists would say that the figure was a gross underestimate.44

In July 1996, information was released on research currently taking place into creation of a computer chip called the “Soul Catcher 2025.” Dr. Chris Winter and a team of scientists at British Telecom’s Martlesham Heath Laboratories, near Ipswich, are developing a chip that, when placed into the skull behind the eye, will record all visual and physical sensations, as well as thoughts. According to Winter, “This is the end of death… By combining this information with a record of the person’s genes, we could recreate a person physically, emotionally, and spiritually.” 45

“The brain is so complex that one wouldn’t at the outset think that replacing any of its parts is doable,” said Dr. Howard Eichenbaum, a professor of psychology at Boston University and director of the Laboratory of Cognitive Neurobiology there. But advances in neuroscience and computer engineering have made it possible to develop implanted circuits that mimic neural activities, he said. “At least in principle, it looks as though a chip imitating some functions of the hippocampus could be implanted in the future,” he said (pic). “It’s a huge, huge advance in simply duplicating the functions of the hippocampus, which in many ways Dr. [Theodore W.] Berger, [a professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Southern California and the director of the Center for Neural Engineering there,] has done.” 46

Electrical devices called deep brain stimulators, essentially a pacemaker for the brain, have been used for some years to ease the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Now, they’ve just been approved for another degenerative brain disease called dystonia.… The brain stimulators don’t cure dystonia but…they can give patients a better quality of life. The beneficial effect has lasted for almost a decade so far in Parkinson’s patients, and it’s expected the dystonia effect will also be long lasting.47

Cyberkinetics Inc. of Foxboro, Mass., has received Food and Drug Administration approval [in 2004] to begin a clinical trial in which four-square-millimeter chips will be placed beneath the skulls of paralyzed patients 48 that would enable [them] to control computers directly with their brains or possibly help them move their limbs.… “Testing these implants in humans is the next step,” said Eberhard E. Fetz, professor at the Department of Physiology and Biophysics at the University of Washington, who has been experimenting with brain-signal devices since the late 1960s. “Within a decade, we’ll see these being used regularly to control prosthetic devices or activate a patient’s own muscles.” 49 At least two other research teams are planning similar brain-machine experiments in people.50

For the first time in humans [2004], a team headed by University researchers has placed an electronic grid atop patients’ brains to gather motor signals that enable the patients to play a computer game using only the signals from their brains. The use of a grid atop the brain to record the organ’s surface signals is a brain-machine interface technique that uses electrocorticographic (ECoG) activity — data taken invasively directly from the brain surface.… Eric C. Leuthardt, M.D., a WUSTL neurosurgeon at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, and Daniel Moran, Ph.D., assistant professor of biomedical engineering in the School of Engineering & Applied Science, performed their research on four adult epilepsy patients who had the grids implanted so that neurologists could find the area in the brain serving as the focus for an epileptic seizure, with hopes of removing it to avoid future seizures.… “To put this in perspective,” Leuthardt said, “the previous EEG-based x systems are equivalent to a 1908 Wright brothers airplane in regards to speed of learning to achieve control. Right now, with our results, we're flying around in an F-16 jet.” 51

Probes implanted in the brain for diagnosis and treatment could be improved with nanoscale carbon fibers. Biomedical engineer Thomas Webster from Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana and colleagues developed a carbon nanofiber-reinforced plastic composite to determine whether it could improve neural and orthopedic prosthetics.

Neural prosthetics, usually made of silicon, can become covered in scar tissue. Orthopedic implants, usually made of titanium or titanium alloys, often become covered in soft tissue.

Knowing that carbon nanofibers and nanotubes have electrical and mechanical properties that might make them suitable for prosthesis, the researchers tested composites of 60-odd nanometer carbon nanofibers in polycarbonate urethane. Polycarbonate urethane is already approved for human use.

They found that neurons cultured on the nanofiber composite developed neurite extensions, which are the first step towards axons and a sign that the materials could encourage interactions essential to neural probes. Additionally, the material had less adhesion to astrocytes, which can impede neural function by producing scar tissue.

For orthopedic applications, the researchers found that bone-forming cells adhered better to composites with a high volume of nanofibers but cells that produce soft fibrous tissue stuck less readily.

The research is reported in the journal Nanotechnology (read abstract).52

[Related to brain implants are implants that are connected to nerves from different parts of the body. Professor Kevin Warwick, for example, had implants inserted into his and his wife’s arms allowing two-way communication. The results were published in his book, I, Cyborg.]

[Another man, whose arms needed to be amputated,] underwent surgery to graft existing nerve endings from his shoulder onto the pectoral muscle on his chest. Those nerves grew into the muscle after about six months. Electrodes on the graft can now pick up any thought-generated nerve impulses to the now-absent limb and transmit those to [a] mechanical prosthesis, controlling the movements of the [“bionic”] arm.53

[The television series Ripley’s Believe it or Not that aired on 5 June 2004 included a segment about French doctors who implanted a computer chip in a paralyzed man’s abdomin connected to implants in his legs that allowed him to stand and walk with a walker by means of computer control.]

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #105 on: March 09, 2008, 11:04:59 PM »
We are Borg.
You will be assimilated.
Resistance is futile.54

Not everyone is thrilled at the prospect of a post-human future populated by cyborgs, designer children, conscious computers,xi immortals and disembodied minds roaming the Internet.… [Critics] think this could be the worst calamity to befall us, both as individuals and as a species.xii And they argue we should be taking steps to prevent it.55

If cyborgs are created with superhuman capabilities from a normal human start point, then it certainly brings about a threat to humanity itself. Perhaps the development of direct, military-style cyborgs might be possible to avoid. After all, when cyborgs exhibiting an intelligence that far surpasses that of humans are brought about, it will surely be the cyborgs themselves that make any decisions about how they treat humans.56

[Marvin Minsky, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor and pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence,] celebrates a future when humans will be able to “upload” the contents of their brains into computers or robot brains.… [Ray Kurzweil] recently called for replacing the body’s often imperfect molecular blueprint, DNA, with software.… “Transhumanists want to use technology to enhance and fulfill human potential,” [James Hughes, executive director of the World Transhumanist Association based in Willington, Conn.,] said. “That’s very hard to do if you die after only 70 years.” 57

“Humanity’s ability to alter its own brain function might well shape history as powerfully as the development of metallurgy in the Iron Age,” cognitive neuroscientist Martha Farah and eight co-authors write in a[n]…issue of Nature Reviews Neuroscience.58


i A handful of researchers are plumbing the potential of the bionic eye, including Wheaton, Ill.-based Optobionics Corp., led by Dr. Alan Chow, a pediatric ophthalmologist whose artificial silicon retinas have slight [sic] improved the vision of the six patients who’ve received them.
— Jim Krane (The Associated Press) “Bionic Eye Follows Bionic Ear,” Yahoo! News, 27 May 2002.

ii A small, precise dose of electricity can restore sight to some of the million or so Americans considered legally blind. For the past few months, two patients have made out doctors in white lab coats, among other things, thanks to a complex apparatus…made by Second Sight, a privately held firm in Santa Clarita, Calif. The device includes a tiny antenna inside the eye and a retinal implant with pencil-tip-size electrodes that fire electrical signals directly onto the optic nerves and brain. The resolution is extremely crude because there are only 16 electrodes, not enough to recognize faces. Second Sight and a consortium of research laboratories recently received a $9 million federal grant to find a way to squeeze 1,000 electrodes onto the array to make the picture sharper. Powered by an external battery, a mini video camera screwed into a pair of eyeglasses will wirelessly beam images to the array (pic) — all for an estimated cost, including surgery, of $25,000. Scientists concede facial recognition may be five to ten years away. So far, Second Sight has reported no negative side effects in the two patients undergoing clinical trials.
— Aliya Sternstein, “Seeing-Eye Chip,” Forbes, 14 Oct 2002.

iii A pea-sized miniature telescope inserted into the eye is showing promise in improving vision for people with macular degeneration.… Once the telescope is implanted, the eyes no longer work together because the brain cannot merge the magnified image in one eye with the normal image in the other eye. The one-hour surgery involves removing the eye lens and placing the telescope into the patient’s eye with the poorest vision. The eye telescope is one of the newest developments in a bionic revolution, in which plastic, metal and polymers are used to create artificial muscles, ears and other organs that researchers hope will improve the quality of life. “There’s no question there will be a tremendous number of advances in the future that will include devices, whether electrical or mechanical, which will enhance the function of our organs,” said Steve Goldstein, a University of Michigan Henry Ruppenthal family professor of orthopedic surgery and bioengineering.
The Associated Press, “Miniature ‘bionic’ eye implant rescues vision,” USA Today, 8 Dec 2003.

iv An implantable chip that can serve as both a prosthetic retina and a drug delivery system has been developed to treat age-related blindness and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease. Created by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine in California, the chip communicates chemically rather than electrically, using neurotransmitters to stimulate cells.… Because the chip can draw droplets of fluid in as well as out, it could also enable researchers to take samples in real time, giving them a chemical picture of what goes on in living tissues during certain processes.
— Gabe Romain, “‘Wet’ Eye Chip Becomes Reality; Uses chemicals to work as artificial retina and drug delivery system,” BetterHumans, 23 June 2004.

v Physicians of the House Ear Clinic have successfully implanted the first two patients with a Penetrating Electrode Auditory Brainstem Implant (PABI), a revolutionary prosthetic device that is currently in clinical trials. The PABI is based on cochlear implant technology, but extends the utility to stimulating the hearing portions of the brain to restore some degree of hearing function to people deafened by bilateral tumors on their hearing and balance nerves (vestibular schwannomas). The PABI is a modified version of the existing Auditory Brainstem Implant (ABI) with the addition of an assembly of microelectrodes, designed to penetrate into the auditory portion of the brainstem (cochlear nucleus) and send sound signals to the brain.
— “First Successful Use of Penetrating Microelectrodes in Human Brainstem Restores Some Hearing to Deaf Patient,” Business Wire, 16 Jan 2004.

vi Be on guard next time you step into the shower. It might not be a regular cockroach watching you on the ceiling. It could be a well-heeled voyeur’s spy filming you!
— Ron Henderson, trans., “Cockroaches on a secret mission,” Sydsvenska Dagbladet, 18 Jan 1997, at

vii The idea that advance in neurotechnology will one day allow us to video our whole lives from somewhere inside our brains throws up all kinds of issues about privacy, about the world being a stage, about how we edit and censor our own memories and about how one day someone else may do this job for us.
— Lee Marshall, Screen review “The Final Cut,” at

viii Sleep induced by electrical stimulation of the brain is similar to spontaneous sleep.
— José M. R. Delgado, M.D., Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 158.

ix In 1950 the Agency [CIA] tooled up for a battery of mind control experiments on human guinea pigs, underwritten by a network of scientific foundations and academic fronts. Neuropsychiatrists at Tulane, McGill, Yale, UCLA and Harvard, some of them laboring beside Nazi imports, researched the use of brain implants to control behavior.… A monograph written in the 1960s by Dr. Jose Delgado, a Yale psychiatrist hailing from Franco’s Spain, detailed his experiments on an 11-year-old boy with electrodes implanted in his brain. Dr. Delgado stimulated his young subject’s synapses with a radio transmitter at a range of 100 feet. The boy was immediately stripped of his sexual identity, reporting that he wasn’t sure if he was a boy or a girl.
— Alex Constantine, “Journal Preview; 12/95: The Constantine Report,” at

x [Operant conditioning is used in the science of electroencephalograph (EEG)-based cursor control brain-computer interface (BCI) technologies. By successive training of mu (and beta) brainwaves, a cursor can be moved on a computer screen just by thinking about it.]

xi According to Moore’s Law, computer power doubles every 18 months, meaning that computers will be a million times more powerful by 2034. According to Nielsen’s Law of Internet bandwidth, connectivity to the home grows by 50 percent per year; by 2034, we’ll have 200,000 times more bandwidth. That same year, I’ll own a computer that runs at 3PHz CPU speed, has a petabyte (a thousand terabytes) of memory, half an exabyte (a billion gigabytes) of hard disk-equivalent storage and connects to the Internet with a bandwidth of a quarter terabit (a trillion binary digits) per second. The specifics may vary: Instead of following current Moore’s Law trajectories to speed up a single CPU, it’s likely that we’ll see multiprocessors, smart dust and other ways of getting the equivalent power through a more advanced computer architecture.… By 2034, we’ll finally get decent computer displays, with a resolution of about 20,000 pixels by 10,000 pixels (as opposed to the miserly 2048 pixels by 1536 pixels on my current monitor). Although welcomed, my predicted improvement factor of 200 here is relatively small; history shows that display technology has the most dismal improvement curve of any computer technology, except possibly batteries.
— Jakob Nielsen, “Thirty years with computers,”, 27 May 2004.

xii [Ethicist Joel Anderson at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri,] points out that it will take time for people to accept the technology. “Initially people thought heart transplants were an abomination because they assumed that having the heart you were born with was an important part of who you are.”
— “World’s first brain prosthesis revealed,”, 12 March 2003.



1 Declan McCullagh, “Kurzweil: Rooting for the Machine,” Wired News, 3 Nov 2000.

2 José M. R. Delgado, M.D., Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 201.

3 Cochlear Hearing Implants, “New to Cochlear? Start Here,” at

4 Neil Gross, “Into the wild frontier,” Business Week, 23 June 1997, p. 74.

5 E. J. Mundell (Reuters Health), “Monkey Moves Computer Cursor by Thoughts Alone,” Yahoo! News, 30 Jan 2002.

6 Peter Passaro, “Is it Possible to Download Knowledge into the Brain? Mind-machine interfaces will be available in the near future, and several methods hold promise for implanting information,” Better Humans, 16 Jan 2004.

7 Amanda Onion, “Rat Robots: Scientists Develop Remote-Controlled Rats,”, 2 May 2002.

8Rats Operate Robotic Arm Via Brain Activity,” Science Daily, 23 June 1999.

9Monkey brain operates machine,” BBC, 15 Nov 2000.

10 Rick Weiss, “Monkeys Control Robotic Arm With Brain Implants,”, 13 Oct 2003.

11 Mundell, “Monkey Moves Computer Cursor.”

12 Anne Eisenberg, “Don’t Point, Just Think: The Brain Wave as Joystick,” The New York Times, 28 March 2002.

13 Paul Eng, “Moving Thoughts: Scientists Study Brain Implants to Control PCs, Artificial Limbs,”, 13 March 2002.

14Communicating with ‘thought power’,” BBC, 15 Oct 1998.

15 Jane Wakefield, “BodyTechnic: New funding for brain implants,” ZDNet UK News, 3 Dec 1998.

16 Eng, “Moving Thoughts.”

17 Onion, “Rat Robots.”

18Fish-brained robot at Science Museum,” BBC, 27 Nov 2000.

19 “Peepers creepers; Research at the University of Tokyo is investigating ways in which cockroaches with the mini-cameras can be used to locate vermin or perhaps even survivors of earthquakes,” Time, 27 Jan 1997, 149(4), p. 17.

20 Raymond Kurzweil, “Accelerated Living,”, 24 Sep 2001; See also Ray Kurzweil, “Accelerated Living,” PC Magazine, 4 Sep 2001.

21 Reuters, “Remote-Controlled Rats May Hunt Bombs and Bodies,” Yahoo! News, 2 May 2002.

22 Tom Clarke, “Here come the Ratbots; Desire drives remote-controlled rodents,” Nature, 2 May 2002.

23 James Meek, “Live rats driven by remote control,” The Guardian, 2 May 2002.

24 Dr David Whitehouse, “Looking through cats’ eyes,” BBC News, 11 Oct 1999; See also Garrett B. Stanley, Fei F. Li, and Yang Dan, “Reconstruction of Natural Scenes from Ensemble Responses in the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus,” The Journal of Neuroscience, 15 Sep 1999, 19(18):8036-8042.

25 Jim Keith, Mass Control: Engineering Human Consciousness (Lilburn, GA: IllumiNet Press, 1999), p. 94.

26 Jim Keith, Mind Control, World Control (Kempton, IL: Adventures Unlimited Press, 1998), p. 127.

27 Keith, Mass Control, pp. 94-95.

28 Vance Packard, The People Shapers (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1977), p. 45.

29Brain, Mind, and Altered States of Consciousness,” New Enlightenment.

30 Professor Kevin Warwick, I, Cyborg (London: Century, 2002), p. 110.

31 Keith, Mind Control, p. 127.

32 Keith, Mass Control, p. 97.

33 Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988, 1970), p. 194.

34 John A. Osmundsen, “‘Matador’ With a Radio Stops Wired Bull,” The New York Times, 17 May 1965, CXIV(39,195), p. 20.

35 Jose Delgado, cited in Keith, Mind Control, p. 128.

36 Ibidem, pp. 129-130.

37 Ibidem, p. 130.

38 Keith, Mass Control, p. 99.

39 Ibidem, p. 100.

40 Ibidem, p. 101.

41 Warwick, I, Cyborg, p. 112.

42 Packard, People Shapers, p. 4.

43 Keith, Mass Control, p. 101.

44 Keith, Mind Control, p. 138.

45 Ibidem, p. 302.

46 Anne Eisenberg, “What’s Next; A Chip That Mimics Neurons, Firing Up the Memory,” The New York Times, 20 June 2002; See also USC Engineering News at

47Brain ‘Pacemaker’ Helps Alleviate Symptoms Of Dystonia; Disease Makes Patients Stiffen Up So Much They Lose Mobility,”, 21 July 2003.

48 Justin Pope (The Associated Press), “FDA Approves Human Brain Implant Devices,” Yahoo! News, 14 April 2004.

49 Jeffrey Krasner, “Approval sought to test brain implant; Neuron-fired device would aid paralyzed people, state firm says,”, 6 Nov 2003.

50 Ronald Kotulak, “I, CYBORG,” Chicago Tribune, 1 Aug 2004.

51 Tony Fitzpatrick, “Thought control: Human subjects play real mind games,” Record, 25 June 2004.

52Nanoscale Fibers Could Improve Neural Implants,” BetterHumans, 11 Dec 2003.

53Brain waves drive man’s bionic arm,”, 25 Sep 2003.

54 Star Trek, television series.

55 Margie Wylie (Religion News Service), “Transhumanists put their faith in technology,” Chicago Tribune, 28 May 2004.

56 Warwick, I, Cyborg, p. 239.

57 Wylie, “Transhumanists.”

58 Tom Siegfried, “Creating brain boosters demands smart approach,”, 6 June 2004.


Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society by Jose Manuel Rodriguez Delgado

Mass Control: Engineering Human Consciousness by Jim Keith

Mind Control, World Control by Jim Keith

The People Shapers by Vance Oakley Packard

Future Shock by Alvin Toffler

I, Cyborg by Kevin Warwick


See also

The work of Jose Delgado, a pioneering star
Brain-machine interface: Can thoughts control machines?
CIA Mind Control
Brain implant timeline
George Orwell Meets the Matrix (timeline)
George Orwell Meets the Matrix by Maureen Farrell
Percutaneous pedestal
Cortical implants
Wetware (brain tissue computer chips)
Manchurian Candidate (2004)
Neuroprosthesis Research Organization
W. Ross Ashby’s “An Introduction to Cybernetics
OpenEEG project

Cochlear and ocular implant videos:

Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Lamprey cyborg video:


Rat cyborg audio:


Remote-controlled rat video:


Primate Research Could Lead to Robotic Prosthetic (audio) (29 Oct 2004):



Welcome to the Machines (6mins 40s)


Wilder Penfield brain maps




Remote-controlled cockroach


Remote-controlled rat

Examples of guided rat navigation using brain microstimulation. Sketches are constructed from digitized video recordings. Red dots indicate rat head positions at 1-s intervals; green dots indicate positions at which reward stimulations were administered to the medial forebrain bundle (MFB); blue arrows indicate positions at which right ® and left (L) directional cues were issued; black arrows indicate positions 0.5 s after directional commands. a, Route followed by a rat guided through a slalom course. Inset, detail of the events that took place inside the dashed enclosure. b, Route taken by a rat guided over a three-dimensional obstacle course. The animal was instructed to climb a vertical ladder, cross a narrow ledge, descend a flight of steps, pass through a hoop and descend a steep (70º) ramp. Two rounds of high-density MFB stimulation were required to guide the rat successfully down the ramp, demonstrating the motivational qualities of MFB stimulation.
— Sanjiv K. Talwar, Shaohua Xu, Emerson S. Hawley, Shennan A. Weiss, Karen A. Moxon & John K. Chapin, “Behavioural neuroscience: Rat navigation guided by remote control,” Nature, 417, 37-38 (2002).


Canadian and German researchers have grown snail nerve cells on a microchip and showed the cells have memory and can communicate. The researchers say this melding of machine and biology has a wide-range of potential applications.
— “Calgary scientist grows brain cells on microchip,” CBC News, 1 March 2004.


A bright yellow slime mould that can grow to several metres in diameter has been put in charge of a scrabbling, six-legged robot. The Physarum polycephalum slime, which naturally shies away from light, controls the robot's movement so that it too keeps out of light and seeks out dark places in which to hide itself. They grew slime in a six-pointed star shape on top of a circuit and connected it remotely, via a computer, to the hexapod bot. Any light shone on sensors mounted on top of the robot were used to control light shone onto one of the six points of the circuit-mounted mould – each corresponding to a leg of the bot. As the slime tried to get away from the light its movement was sensed by the circuit and used to control one of the robot's six legs. The robot then scrabbled away from bright lights as a mechanical embodiment of the mould.
— Will Knight, “Robot moved by slime mould’s fears,” NewScientist, 13 Feb 2006.


A microscopic view of rat neurons growing on a multi-electrode array in a petri dish trained to pilot a virtual F-22 fighter jet.
See: Wetware.


Offline jassy

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #106 on: March 15, 2008, 12:28:54 PM »
thank you matrixcutter for all your work in this site. It is awesome how much you put into it. I was hooked by the time you mentioned pets. true, microchipped pets are not in any danger but when this came into my country i was immediatly aggro. Why the hell convince me that if i dont do this i am a bad pet owner? for years i survived without cell phones and i am still here. why must my pet be tagged? Thats the whole con.
convince you if you dont do it then you are a bad person cause its so easy, so convenient. if your child goes missing and he or she was not chipped then you are a bad parent. I only have pets but the same applies.
When i read things like this thread i have hope for us. The fighting spirit of humans is still there.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #107 on: March 16, 2008, 04:26:18 PM »
thank you matrixcutter for all your work in this site. It is awesome how much you put into it.
You're welcome.
If you want to know more, I strongly recommend listening to the Alan Watt mp3s in the first post - my name is a reference to his website

There are a couple more relevant mp3s since then:
Dec. 17, 2007 - Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" on RBN (adverts removed)
"Exodus from Physical Slavery to Virtual Slavery - The Surrender of Consciousness" - mp3 - transcript
(Article: "'Exodus' to virtual worlds predicted" BBC News, - Dec. 11, 2007.)

Feb. 8, 2008 - Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" on RBN (adverts removed)
"Technique of Intergenerational Reality Alteration and Guidance - (a) I Know, (b) That's Possible, (c) I'm Now Unsure, (d) What's Everyone Thinking? (e) I'll Follow Them." - mp3 - transcript available soon here.
(Article: "Life is one big computer game" Metro ( - Feb. 5, 2008.)
(Article: "Exclusive! The FBI Deputizes Business" by Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive Magazine ( - February 7, 2008.)

I was hooked by the time you mentioned pets. true, microchipped pets are not in any danger but when this came into my country i was immediatly aggro. Why the hell convince me that if i dont do this i am a bad pet owner? for years i survived without cell phones and i am still here. why must my pet be tagged? Thats the whole con. convince you if you dont do it then you are a bad person cause its so easy, so convenient. if your child goes missing and he or she was not chipped then you are a bad parent. I only have pets but the same applies.
It's all about conditioning us step-by-step, with a constant stream of propaganda, from various different angles.

When i read things like this thread i have hope for us. The fighting spirit of humans is still there.
Oh it's definitely still there in some percentage of the population, and in another chunk of the population it's just waiting to be awakened.
But some people are far too well conditioned already to step outside of the box they've been reduced to, using scientifically designed indoctrination techniques.  Alan Watt discusses this sort of thing regularly.  There are literally hundreds of free mp3s and transcripts on his website.

I have now updated the OP, adding those 2 Alan Watt mp3s but also improving the first few paragraphs.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #108 on: March 16, 2008, 04:28:37 PM »
Dec 20, 2006 Alan Watt Blurb
"Brain Implant Familiarization and the Front-Men Who Plug-It" - mp3 - transcript
Frontman Professor Kevin Warwick is discussed.

LIFT Conference || Kevin Warwick (2008) (26mins)
In this presentation Kevin Warwick takes a look at four different mergers involving the use of implant technology and micro electrode arrays, like technology for identifying and tracking humans, robots with biological brains, deep brain stimulation for therapeutic purposes and neural implants to enhance human abilities.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #109 on: March 16, 2008, 04:40:50 PM »
The brain chip will probably be presented to us as the best thing to happen to the human race.  There have already been people who have benefitted from the brain chip e.g. paraplegics.  And this makes it difficult to criticise the brain chip, because it has been presented as beneficial for the "poor unfortunates".  But eventually it will be marketed to the general public, and there will be benefits.  But at no point will they ever tell us the real purpose of the brain chip - total control over the population.  There might be an occassional mention of the possible dangers if some tyrant ever took control, but people discussing this will be dismissed as "conspiracy theorists", or "Luddites".  The reality is that the world is already run by incredibly dangerous psychopaths, who do not care about the welfare of the general population.

Anyway, here is some more information on the brain chip:
The work of Jose Delgado

The Forgotten Era of BRAINCHIPS

By John Horgan, director of the center for science writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J., was a staff writer for Scientific American from 1986 to 1997 and then, until recently, a freelance writer. His books include The End of Science, The Undiscovered Mind and Rational Mysticism.

Brain-stimulation research four decades ago, goes largely unacknowledged today. What happened?

In the early 1970s Jose Manuel Rodriguez Delgado, a professor of physiology at Yale University, was among the world’s most acclaimed—and controversial neuroscientists. In 1970 the New York Times Magazine hailed him in a cover story as the “impassioned prophet of a new ‘psychocivilized society’ whose members would influence and alter their own mental functions.” The article added, though, that some of Delgado’s Yale colleagues saw “frightening potentials” in his work.

Delgado, after all, had pioneered that most unnerving of technologies, the brain chip—an electronic device that can manipulate the mind by receiving signals from and transmitting them to neurons. Long the McGuffins of science fiction, from The Terminal Man to The Matrix, brain chips are now being used or tested as treatments for epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, paralysis, blindness and other disorders. Decades ago Delgado carried out experiments that were more dramatic in some respects than anything being done today.

ELECTRICAL BRAIN-STIMULATION DEVICES (above), invented by Jose Delgado for his research into behavior and motor control, were implanted into apes, monkeys (below), bulls, cats and humans. Electrodes could remain implanted for more than two years.

He implanted radio-equipped electrode arrays, which he called “stimoceivers,” in cats, monkeys, chimpanzees, gibbons, bulls and even humans, and he showed that he could control subjects’ minds and bodies with the push of a button. Yet after Delgado moved to Spain in 1974, his reputation in the U.S. faded, not only from public memory but from the minds and citation lists of other scientists. He described his results in more than 500 peer-reviewed papers and in a widely reviewed 1969 book, but these are seldom cited by modern researchers. In fact, some familiar with his early work assume he died. But Delgado, who recently moved with his wife, Caroline, from Spain to San Diego, Calif., is very much alive and well, and he has a unique perspective on modern efforts to treat various disorders by stimulating specific areas of the brain.

When Lobotomies Were the Rage

Born in 1915 in Ronda, Spain, Delgado went on to earn a medical degree from the University of Madrid in the 1930s. Although he has long been dogged by rumors that he supported the fascist regime of Francisco Franco, he actually served in the medical corps of the Republican Army (which opposed Franco during Spain’s civil war) while he was a medical student. After Franco crushed the Republicans, Delgado was detained in a concentration camp for five months before resuming his studies. He originally intended to become an eye doctor, like his father. But a stint in a physiology laboratory—plus exposure to the writings of the great Spanish neuroscientist Santiago Ramón y Cajal—left him entranced by “the many mysteries of the brain. How little was known then. How little is known now!” Delgado was particularly intrigued by the experiments of Swiss physiologist Walter Rudolf Hess. Beginning in the 1920s, Hess had demonstrated that he could elicit behaviors such as rage, hunger and sleepiness in cats by electrically stimulating different spots in their brains with wires. In 1946 Delgado won a yearlong fellowship at Yale. In 1950 he accepted a position in its department of physiology, then headed by John Fulton, who played a crucial role in the history of psychiatry. In a 1935 lecture in London, Fulton had reported that a violent, “neurotic” chimpanzee named Becky had become calm and compliant after surgical destruction of her prefrontal lobes. In the audience was Portuguese psychiatrist Egas Moniz, who started performing lobotomies on psychotic patients and claimed excellent results. After Moniz won a Nobel Prize in 1949, lobotomies became an increasingly popular treatment for mental illness. Initially disturbed that his method of pacifying a chimpanzee had been applied to humans, Fulton later became a cautious proponent of psychosurgery. Delgado disagreed with his mentor’s stance. “I thought Fulton and Moniz’s idea of destroying the brain was absolutely horrendous,” Delgado recalls. He felt it would be “far more conservative” to treat mental illness by applying the electrical stimulation methods pioneered by Hess—who shared the 1949 prize with Moniz. “My idea was to avoid lobotomy,” Delgado says, “with the help of electrodes implanted in the brain.” One key to Delgado’s scientific success was his skill as an inventor; a Yale colleague once called him a “technological wizard.” In his early experiments, wires ran from implanted electrodes out through the skull and skin to bulky electronic devices that recorded data and delivered electrical pulses. This setup restricted subjects’ movements and left them prone to infections. Hence, Delgado designed radio-equipped stimoceivers as small as half-dollars that could be fully implanted in subjects. His other inventions included an early version of the cardiac pacemaker and implantable “chemitrodes” that could release precise amounts of drugs directly into specific areas of the brain. In 1952 Delgado co-authored the first peer-reviewed paper describing longterm implantation of electrodes in humans, narrowly beating a report by Robert Heath of Tulane University. Over the next two decades Delgado implanted electrodes in some 25 human subjects, most of them schizophrenics and epileptics, at a now defunct mental hospital in Rhode Island. He operated, he says, only on desperately ill patients whose disorders had resisted all previous treatments. Early on, his placement of electrodes in humans was guided by animal experiments, studies of brain-damaged people and the work of Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield; beginning in the 1930s, Penfield stimulated epileptics’ brains with electrodes before surgery to determine where he should operate.

CAROLINE DELGADO, shown monitoring encephalographic readings from a monkey, has assisted her husband since their meeting at Yale University in the 1950s.

Taming a Fighting Bull

Delgado showed that stimulation of the motor cortex could elicit specific physical reactions, such as movement of the limbs. One patient clenched his fist when stimulated, even when he tried to resist. “I guess, doctor, that your electricity is stronger than my will,” the patient commented. Another subject, turning his head from side to side in response to stimulation, insisted he was doing so voluntarily, explaining, “I am looking for my slippers.” By stimulating different regions of the limbic system, which regulates emotion, Delgado could also induce fear, rage, lust, hilarity, garrulousness and other reactions, some of them startling in their intensity. In one experiment, Delgado and two collaborators at Harvard

University stimulated the temporal lobe of a 21-year-old epileptic woman while she was calmly playing a guitar; in response, she flew into a rage and smashed her guitar against a wall, narrowly missing a researcher’s head. Perhaps the most medically promising finding was that stimulation of a limbic region called the septum could trigger euphoria, strong enough in some cases to counteract depression and even physical pain. Delgado limited his human research, however, because the therapeutic benefits of implants were unreliable; results varied widely from patient to patient and could be unpredictable even in the same subject. In fact, Delgado recalls turning away more patients than he treated, including a young woman who was sexually promiscuous and prone to violence and had repeatedly been confined in jails and mental hospitals. Although both the woman and her parents begged Delgado to implant electrodes in her, he refused, feeling that electrical stimulation was too primitive for a case involving no discernible neurological disorder. Delgado did much more extensive research on monkeys and other animals, often focusing on neural regions that elicit and inhibit aggression. In one demonstration, which explored the effects of stimulation on social hierarchy, he implanted a stimoceiver in a macaque bully. He then installed a lever in the cage that, when pressed, pacified the bully by causing the stimoceiver to stimulate the monkey’s caudate nucleus, a brain region involved in controlling voluntary movements. A female in the cage soon discovered the lever’s power and yanked it whenever the male threatened her. Delgado, who never shied from anthropomorphic interpretations, wrote, “The old dream of an individual overpowering the strength of a dictator by remote control has been fulfilled, at least in our monkey colonies.” Delgado’s most famous experiment took place in 1963 at a bull-breeding ranch in Cordoba, Spain. After inserting stimoceivers into the brains of several “fighting bulls,” he stood in a bullring with one bull at a time and, by pressing buttons on a handheld transmitter, controlled each animal’s actions. In one instance, captured in a dramatic photograph, Delgado forced a charging bull to skid to a halt only a few feet away from him by stimulating its caudate nucleus. The New York Times published a frontpage story on the event, calling it “the most spectacular demonstration ever performed of the deliberate modification of animal behavior through external control of the brain.” Other articles hailed Delgado’s transformation of an aggressive beast into a real-life version of Ferdinand the bull, the gentle hero of a popular children’s story. In terms of scientific significance, Delgado believes his experiment on a female chimpanzee named Paddy deserved more attention. Delgado programmed Paddy’s stimoceiver to detect distinctive signals, called spindles, spontaneously emitted by her amygdala. Whenever the stimoceiver detected a spindle, it stimulated the central gray region of Paddy’s brain, producing an “aversive reaction”—that is, a painful or unpleasant sensation. After two hours of this negative feedback, Paddy’s amygdala produced 50 percent fewer spindles; the frequency dropped by 99 percent within six days. Paddy was not exactly a picture of health: she became “quieter, less attentive and less motivated during behavioral testing,” Delgado wrote. He nonetheless speculated that this “automatic learning” technique could be used to quell epileptic seizures, panic attacks or other disorders characterized by specific brain signals. Delgado’s research was supported not only by civilian agencies but also by military ones such as the Office of Naval Research (but never, Delgado insists, by the Central Intelligence Agency, as some conspiracy theorists have charged). Delgado, who calls himself a pacifist, says that his Pentagon sponsors viewed his work as basic research and never steered him toward military applications. He has always dismissed speculation that implants could create cyborg soldiers who kill on command, like the brainwashed assassin in the novel and film versions of The Manchurian Candidate. (The assassin was controlled by psychological methods in the original 1962 film and by a brain chip in the 2004 remake.) Brain stimulation may “increase or decrease aggressive behavior,” he asserts, but it cannot “direct aggressive behavior to any specific target.”

CAT LIFTED ITS HIND LEG in response to stimulation by an electrode implanted in its brain.

The cat, Delgado says, displayed no discomfort in this experiment done in the early 1950s.

Overview/Brain Implants

- Jose M. R. Delgado, a pioneer in brain-implant technology, is perhaps most famous for halting a charging bull by merely pressing a button on a device that sent signals to the animal’s brain.

- In the early 1970s Delgado went from being acclaimed to being criticized. In 1974 he moved from the U.S. to Spain and then gradually faded from public consciousness and the citation lists of neuroscientists.

- His accomplishments, however, helped to pave the way for modern brain-implant technology, which is enjoying a resurgence today and is improving life for patients with epilepsy and such movement disorders as Parkinson’s and dystonia.

- Delgado, now 90, recently returned to the U.S., complete with strong opinions on the promise and perils of the ongoing work.

FIGHTING BULL with a stimoceiver in its brain (below) charged Delgado in a Spanish bullring in 1963 (middle two photographs) and then stopped and turned in response to a radio signal from Delgado (far right). Critics contended that the stimulation did not quell the bull’s aggressive instinct, as Delgado suggested, but rather forced it to turn to the left. Delgado, who grew up in Ronda, Spain, a bastion of bullfighting, admits he felt “frightened” just before his signal made the bull abandon the chase.

Envisioning a “Psychocivilized Society”

FEMALE MACAQUE (far left in first photograph) learned that by pulling a lever in the cage she could escape encounters with an alpha male. The lever sent a signal to a stimoceiver in his brain, pacifying him. The alpha male is in the pacified state at the far right in the left image and has become aggressive in the other shot. Delgado carried out many investigations, such as this one in the early 1960s, into the effects of brain stimulation on social interactions.

In 1969 Delgado described brain stimulation research and discussed its implications in Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society, which was illustrated with photographs of monkeys, cats, a bull and two young women whose turbans concealed stimoceivers. (Female patients “have shown their feminine adaptability to circumstance,” Delgado remarked, “by wearing attractive hats or wigs to conceal their electrical headgear.”) Spelling out the limitations of brain stimulation, Delgado downplayed “Orwellian possibilities” in which evil scientists enslave people by implanting electrodes in their brains. Yet some of his rhetoric had an alarmingly evangelical tone. Neurotechnology, he declared, was on the verge of “conquering the mind” and creating “a less cruel, happier, and better man.” In a review in Scientific American, the late physicist Philip Morrison called Physical Control “a thoughtful, up-to-date account” of electrical stimulation experiments but added that its implications were “somehow ominous.” In 1970 Delgado’s field was engulfed in a scandal triggered by Frank Ervin and Vernon Mark, two researchers at Harvard Medical School with whom Delgado briefly collaborated. (One of Ervin’s students was Michael Crichton, who wrote The Terminal Man. The best-seller, about a bionic experiment gone awry, was inspired by the research of Ervin, Mark and Delgado.) In their book, Violence and the Brain, Ervin and Mark suggested that brain stimulation or psychosurgery might quell the violent tendencies of blacks rioting in inner cities. In 1972 Heath, the Tulane psychiatrist, raised more questions about brain-implant research when he reported that he had tried to change the sexual orientation of a male homosexual by stimulating his septal region while he had intercourse with a female prostitute. The fiercest opponent of brain implants was psychiatrist Peter Breggin (who in recent decades has focused on the dangers of psychiatric drugs). In testimony submitted into the Congressional Record in 1972, Breggin lumped Delgado, Ervin, Mark and Heath together with advocates of lobotomies and accused them of trying to create “a society in which everyone who deviates from the norm” will be “surgically mutilated.” Quoting liberally from Physical Control, Breggin singled out Delgado as “the great apologist for technologic totalitarianism.” In his 1973 book Brain Control, Elliot Valenstein, a neurophysiologist at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, presented a detailed scientific critique of brain-implant research by Delgado and others, contending that the results of stimulation were much less precise and therapeutically beneficial than proponents often suggested. (Delgado notes that in his own writings he made many of the same points as Valenstein.) Meanwhile strangers started accusing Delgado of having secretly implanted stimoceivers in their brains. One woman who made this claim sued Delgado and Yale University for $1 million, although he had never met her. In the midst of this brouhaha, Villar Palasi, the Spanish minister of health, asked Delgado to help organize a new medical school at the Autonomous University in Madrid, and he accepted, moving with his wife and two children to Spain in 1974. He insists that he was not fleeing the disputes surrounding his research; the minister’s offer was just too good to refuse. “I said, ‘Could I have the facilities I have at Yale?’ And he said, ‘Oh, no, much better!’” In Spain, Delgado shifted his focus to noninvasive methods of affecting the brain, which he hoped would be more medically acceptable than implants. Anticipating modern techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, he invented a halolike device and a helmet that could deliver electromagnetic pulses to specific neural regions. Testing the gadgets on both animals and human volunteers— including himself and his daughter, Linda—Delgado discovered that he could induce drowsiness, alertness and other states; he also had some success treating tremors in Parkinson’s patients. Delgado still could not entirely escape controversy. In the mid-1980s an article in the magazine Omni and documentaries by the BBC and CNN cited Delgado’s work as circumstantial evidence that the U.S. and Soviet Union might have secretly developed methods for remotely modifying people’s thoughts. Noting that the power and precision of electromagnetic pulses decline rapidly with distance, Delgado dismisses these mind-control claims as “science fiction.” Except for these fl ashes of publicity, however, Delgado’s work no longer received the attention it once had. Although he continued publishing articles—especially on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on cognition, behavior and embryonic growth—many appeared only in Spanish journals. Moreover, brain-stimulation studies back in the U.S. bogged down in ethical controversies, grants dried up, and researchers drifted to other fields, notably psychopharmacology, which seemed to be a much safer, more effective way to treat brain disorders than brain stimulation or surgery. Only in the past decade has brain-implant research revived, spurred by advances in computation, electrodes, microelectronics and brain-scanning technologies and by a growing recognition of the limits of drugs for treating mental illness. Delgado, who stopped doing research in the early 1990s but still follows the field of brain stimulation, believes modern investigators fail to cite his studies not because he was so controversial but simply out of ignorance; after all, most modern databases do not include publications from his heyday in the 1950s and 1960s. He is thrilled by the resurgence of research on brain stimulation, because he still believes in its potential to liberate us from psychiatric diseases and our innate aggression. “In the near future,” he says, “I think we will be able to help many human beings, especially with the noninvasive methods.”

Delgado’s successors have faced some of the same questions that he did about possible abuses of neurotechnology. Some pundits have expressed concern that brain chips could allow a “controlling organization” to “hack into the wetware between our ears,” as New York Times columnist William Safire put it. An editorial in Nature recently expressed concern that officials in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a major funder of brain-implant research, have openly considered implanting brain chips in soldiers to boost their cognitive capacities. Meanwhile some techno-enthusiasts, such as British computer scientist Kevin Warwick, contend that the risks of brain chips are far outweighed by the potential benefits, which will include instantly “downloading” new languages or other skills, controlling computers and other devices with our thoughts, and communicating telepathically with one another. Delgado predicts that neurotechnologies may never advance as far as many people fear or hope. The applications envisioned by Warwick and others, Delgado points out, require knowing how complex information is encoded in the brain, a goal that neuroscientists are far from achieving. Moreover, learning quantum mechanics or a new language involves “slowly changing connections which are already there,” Delgado says. “I don’t think you can do that suddenly.” Brain stimulation, he adds, can only modify skills and capacities that we already possess. But Delgado looks askance at the suggestion of the White House Council on Bioethics and others that some scientific goals—particularly those that involve altering human nature—should not even be pursued. To be sure, he says, technology “has two sides, for good and for bad,” and we should do what we can to “avoid the adverse consequences.” We should try to prevent potentially destructive technologies from being abused by authoritarian governments to gain more power or by terrorists to wreak destruction. But human nature, Delgado asserts, echoing one of the themes of Physical Control, is not static but “dynamic,” constantly changing as a result of our compulsive self-exploration. “Can you avoid knowledge?” Delgado asks. “You cannot! Can you avoid technology? You cannot! Things are going to go ahead in spite of ethics, in spite of your personal beliefs, in spite of everything.”

Brain Implants Today

KARI WEINER was confined to a wheelchair for seven years by dystonia, a condition that causes uncontrollable muscle spasms. Now she walks without assistance, thanks to battery powered electrodes that were implanted in her brain when she was 13—and to surgeries that then repaired her twisted muscles and lengthened her tendons.

When Jose Delgado and a few other intrepid scientists first began exploring the effects of implanting electrodes in the brain half a century ago, they could not foresee how many people would one day benefit from this line of research. By far the most successful form of implant, or “neural prosthesis,” is the artificial cochlea. More than 70,000 people have been equipped with these devices, which restore at least rudimentary hearing by feeding signals from an external microphone to the auditory nerve. Brain stimulators have been implanted in more than 30,000 people suffering from Parkinson’s disease and other movement disorders (including 17-year-old Kari Weiner, shown at the right). Roughly the same number of epileptics are being treated with devices that stimulate the Vagus nerve in the neck. Work on other prostheses is proceeding more slowly. Clinical trials are now under way to test brain and Vagus nerve stimulation for treating disorders such as depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic attacks and chronic pain. Artificial retinas—light-sensitive chips that mimic the eye’s signal-processing ability and stimulate the optic nerve or visual cortex—have been tested in a handful of blind subjects, but they usually “see” nothing more than phosphenes, or bright spots. Several groups have recently shown that monkeys can control computers and robotic arms “merely by thinking,” as media accounts invariably put it—not telekinetically but via implanted electrodes picking up neural signals. The potential for empowering the paralyzed is obvious, but so far few experiments with humans have been carried out, with limited success. Chips that might restore the memory of those afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease or other disorders are still a year or two away from testing in rats. The potential market for neural prostheses is enormous. An estimated 10 million Americans grapple with major depression; 4.5 million suffer from memory loss caused by Alzheimer’s disease; more than two million have been paralyzed by spinal cord injuries, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and strokes; and more than a million are legally blind. —J.H.

DELGADO, holding two of his brain implants in a photograph taken in August, once wrote that humanity should shift its mission from the ancient dictum “Know thyself” to “Construct thyself.”


Controlling Robots with the Mind. Miguel A. L. Nicolelis and John K. Chapin in Scientific American, Vol. 287, No. 4, pages 46–53; October 2002.

Rebuilt: How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human. Michael Chorost. Houghton Miffl in, 2005. (A personal story on the pros and cons of brain implants.)

The President’s Council on Bioethics Web site is at

An overview of modern brain stimulation can be found at

Other Web sites extol the utopian possibilities of brain stimulation,

or deplore it as a government mind-control plot

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #110 on: March 16, 2008, 04:42:22 PM »
Brain Machine Interfaces
2007 06 02

By Gregor Wolbring |

Modifying the human body or enhancing our cognitive abilities using technology has been a long-time dream for many people. Nano-bio-info-cogno-synbio (NBICS) is now reaching a critical stage where it could lead to the fulfillment of that dream.

An increasing amount of research tries to link the human brain with machines allowing humans to control their environment through their thoughts. It is said: "Ultimately the technology will be used for people whose spinal cords are destroyed in accidents or those handicapped by strokes." (1)

Scientists demonstrated in 2002 that human thoughts can be converted into radio waves and used by paralyzed people to create movement. (1) "Scientists in Australia have developed a mind switch that enables people to activate electrical devices (e.g. turn on a radio or open doors) by thinking."

The IDIAP Research Institute (formerly the Institute Dalle Molle d'Intelligence Artificielle Perceptive/Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence) is developing non-invasive brain machine interfaces.

The Institute states in a recent publication: "Brain activity recorded non-invasively is sufficient to control a mobile robot if advanced robotics is used in combination with asynchronous EEG analysis and machine learning techniques. Until now brain-actuated control has mainly relied on implanted electrodes, since EEG-based systems have been considered too slow for controlling rapid and complex sequences of movements. We show that two human subjects successfully moved a robot between several rooms by mental control only, using an EEG-based brain-machine interface that recognized three mental states. Mental control was comparable to manual control on the same task with a performance ratio of 0.74."

Many researchers are working on brain machine interfaces.

Cyberkinetics Neurotechnology Systems, Inc. of Foxborough, Massachusetts, received FDA approval to test the "Brain Gate." The company started with people with spinal cord injuries and is now recruiting patients for BrainGate ALS trials, according to

Researchers at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, are developing a wireless neuroprosthetic that could potentially be used to control robotic limbs for quadriplegics. Dr. Miguel Nicolelis of the university’s Department of Neurobiology has a variety of articles on his webpage. A 14 year-old boy plays space invaders using thoughts alone, as a grid connected to his brain measures his electrocortigraphic activity.

The device was developed by Dr. Eric C. Leuthardt, an assistant professor of neurological surgery at the School of Medicine, and Dr. Daniel Moran, assistant professor of biomedical engineering at Washington University in St. Louis. They connected the patient to a sophisticated computer running a special program known as BCI2000 developed by collaborator Gerwin Schalk at the Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health in Albany, which displays a video game linked to an electrocorticographic (ECoG) grid. The primary purpose of the grid was to facilitate treatment for epilepsy.

In Austria, the Graz University of Technology has a brain-computer interface lab. In Japan, Hitachi has joined forces with university researchers. In Finland the Proactive Computing Research Programme (PROACT) is funded by the Academy of Finland and led by Academy Professor Mikko Sams. IST has funded the Presencia project under its Fifth Framework Programme - Future Emerging Technologies - Presence Research.

A 'Berlin Brain-Computer Interface (BBCI)' -- a 'mental typewriter' -- was unveiled at the 2006 CeBIT in Germany, the biggest consumer technology conference worldwide. Devices such as the BBCI are not only seen to benefit disabled people but "could also spread to the entertainment industry, creating a whole new class of video games. Or they could be integrated in active car safety systems, for instance braking the vehicle in response to the driver’s thoughts."

Cambridge Consultants' Virtual Helmet can link brain wave patterns to a virtual reality system, allowing the wearer to enter an illusory world of movement. Researchers at Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corporation in Japan have developed galvanic vestibular stimulation -- a technology that can compel a person to walk along a route in the shape of a giant pretzel, in effect creating remote-controlled humans.

Researchers at Columbia University have combined the processing power of the brain with computer vision to develop a novel device that allows people to search through images ten times faster than they can on their own. The cortically coupled computer vision system -- known as C3 Vision -- turns the brain into an automatic image-identifying machine. The project is funded by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Air Force has long been interested in "alternative control technology" that will allow its pilots to fly planes hands-free.

A robotic hand controlled by the power of thought alone has been demonstrated by researchers in Japan. It mimics the movements of a person's real hand, based on real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging of brain activity. This is seen as another landmark in the advance towards prosthetics and computers that can be operated by thought alone.

The system was developed by Yukiyasu Kamitani and colleagues from ATR

Computational Neuroscience Laboratories in Kyoto, and researchers from the

Honda Research Institute in Saitama. Subjects lying inside an MRI scanner were asked to make "rock, paper, scissor" shapes with their right hand. The scanner recorded brain activity and fed data to a connected computer. After a short training period, the computer was able to recognise the brain activity associated with each shape and command the robotic appendage do the same.

The list goes on.

A brain-activity interpretation contest organized by the University of Pittsburgh provided entrants with functional MRI scanner data and behavioural reports recorded when four people watched two movies. Competitors were asked to create an algorithm that used the brain activity to predict what viewers were thinking and feeling as the film unfolded.

The crunch test came from a third film. Competing researchers were shown the brain activity only, and had to predict the behavioural data -- what the viewers had reported seeing and feeling during the film on a moment-by-moment basis. The rules are here and the results are here.

The competition webpage can be found here. It describes next year’s competition as follows: "The 2007 PBAIC will build upon last year, but will push the competition to a much higher level by focusing on interpretation of subjects' actions and behaviors in addition to cognition. The 2007 Pittsburgh Brain Activity Interpretation Competition will involve analysis of a new, unique fMRI data set representing dynamic subject-driven behavior in a virtual world. fMRI data will be made available from multiple subjects in a very realistic virtual world of multiple streets and rooms (house, bar, playground) with subject control in the world, multiple tasks, social interaction, rewards and threat avoidance. Additionally, eye movement data will be provided along with overlaid tracking of every object fixated on by subjects in the virtual world."

The Choice is Yours
Although brain–machine interfaces are often talked about in relation to disabled people, we can expect they will also be used by the non-disabled as a means to control their environment -- especially if the devices are non-invasive and no implants are needed.

To date there has not been much public discussion of the implications of brain machine interfaces, the amount of public R&D funding they receive, and control, distribution and access to these devices.

Gregor Wolbring is a biochemist, bioethicist, science and technology ethicist, disability/vari-ability studies scholar, and health policy and science and technology studies researcher at the University of Calgary. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the editorial team for the Nanotechnology for Development portal of the Development Gateway Foundation; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO. He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website, moderates a weblog for the International Network for Social Research on Diasbility, and authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications.


"Cyborg implants bring new hope to paralyzed." The Sunday Times. 2002.

David Stonehouse. "The cyborg evolution." Sydney Morning Herald. 2003.

Institut Dalle Molle d'Intelligence Artificielle Perceptive / Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence. IDIAP. 2005.

Millan, J. R., Renkens, F., Mourino, J., and Gerstner, W. "Noninvasive brain-actuated control of a mobile robot by human EEG." IEEE Trans. Biomed Eng 51, 6 1026-1033, PM:15188874. 2004.

Wetware. The Status of Brain-Machine Interfaces. 2004.

Tim Radford."Brain implant may restore memory."The Guardian. 2003,

Duncan Graham-Rowe. "World's first brain prosthesis revealed." New Scientist. 2003.

Whitaker Foundation. Thought-Controlled Prosthetics. 2002.

Pratt School. DARPA to Support Brain-Machine Research. Duke University e-Press. 2003.

Cyberkinetics. BrainGate™ Neural Interface System. 2005.

Jo Revill. “Mind power allows disabled to take a virtual stroll.” The Observer. July 2, 2006.

Yuri Kageyama. “Remote control device ‘controls’ humans.” Associated Press. October 26, 2005.

Lakshmi Sandhana. “This is a computer on your brain,” Wired online. July 12, 2006.

Please contact the author for information on this reference or for additional future references at

BrainGate Video

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #111 on: March 16, 2008, 04:46:46 PM »
DARPA 2009: Brains-on-a-Chip, Transparent Displays
By Noah Shachtman February 07, 2008 | 3:01:00 AM
Categories: DarpaWatch

Brains-on-a-chip, robotic rescue choppers, see-through displays -- those are just a few of the projects that the Pentagon's mad science division has hatched up for next year. 

Earlier this week, DARPA, the Defense Department's way-out research arm, submitted its $3.29 billion budget for the 2009 fiscal year. In it are dozens of new programs -- one more far-reaching than the next.

A particularly wild project is Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics, or  SyNAPSE.  "The program will develop a brain inspired electronic 'chip' that mimics that function, size, and power consumption of a biological cortex," DARPA promises us.  "If successful, the program will provide the foundations for functional machines to supplement humans in many of the most demanding situations faced by warfighters today" -- like getting usable information out of video feeds, and starting tasks.   The agency is looking to spend $3 million next year, to get started on its faux brain effort.   My guess is that it will take considerably more cash to get it done.

The "Nightingale" program aims to put together the building blocks for a "fully autonomous" flyer that could some day serve as both an unmanned ambulance-in-the-sky and as a robotic search-and-rescue chopper.  Looking for, picking up and stabilizing the wounded are dangerous, complicated jobs.  But, by squeezing "integrated life support capabilities into a small unmanned (or optionally piloted) air vehicle," DARPA thinks Nightingale could keep some soldiers out of harm's way.  Not only would the drone search for the missing and wounded.  This "low cost, high availability air ambulance" could be deployed near the warzone, to get casualties to combat hospitals in a hurry.   

Of course, making this a reality won't be easy.  "Technical challenges include intelligent autonomous flight behavior, sensor integrated guidance and control to enable flight in complex terrain, fully autonomous selection...of suitable landing locations, dual mode (ground and flight) propulsion, collaboration/coordination with human combat medics and safe and rapid autonomous launch and return to advanced medical facilities."

Just about everything, in other words.

And that isn't the only new robot project DARPA has in mind for 2009.  There's a $4 million effort to start work on a "robotic naval vessel to operate for years with minimal human interaction."  $4.5 million to build a teeny-tiny, unmanned Osprey that can perch on a rooftop, and silently spy on foes.  Another $4 million to arm small drones with an "inexpensive, low weight precision munition that is effective against soft targets," including individual people.  And $2 million for a walking "tetrapod" to carry soldiers' gear.  (That sounds like our favorite robot, the eerily lifelike, four-legged BigDog.)

DARPA is also looking to spend $5 million next year on laser-guided bullets -- ammo steered by beams of coherent light, and able to turn on a dime.  If the program works as planned, the agency promises, "it will make every shooter with any .50-caliber weapon" into "a precision sniper at greater than 2 kilometer range."

Another $3 million will go towards spotting rocket-propelled grenades -- before they're launched, somehow.  DARPA doesn't elaborate how the trick would be pulled off, only that it would involve "cognitive swarm recognition technology."  In phase one of the program, DARPA boasts, the system will be capable of "detection rates greater than 95%."

DARPA is also looking to spend $3 million next year on "transparent displays."  How would you make those?  Simple... By "exploiting the optical plasmon phenomenology characteristics of nanoscale structures."  (Contact DANGER ROOM HQ immediately in you can translate.)  These new gadgets will replace existing models "in a host of applications, such as canopy- windshield- window-integrated... and new, light-weight avionics displays."  Soldiers today have to use clunky monocles or PDAs -- if they use anything at all -- to get data on the run.  DARPA figures this project might lead to "integrated helmet display visors, bringing the digital battle space to the individual warfighter."

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #112 on: March 16, 2008, 04:48:06 PM »
Connect your Brain to the Internet?
2006 12 11

By Lane Hudson |

Today, the Center for American Progress hosted a panel titled "Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense." CAP Senior Fellow Jonathan Moreno, Ph.D. gave a run down on his book and fellow panelist Jennifer Bard, a law professor at Texas Tech University, gave a legal analysis of advances in neuroscience research as applied to real life situations.

The most shocking comment came from panelist Paul Root Wolpe, Ph.D. when he said that it "is realistic that in ten to fifteen years, it could be possible to directly connect the human brain to the internet." He cited current research where neuroscientists are able to bypass lesions in the brain by connecting two sections of the brain by man made circuitry.

Despite such an earth shaking advancement being possibly a decade away, there exists no body of ethical oversight OR laws governing such research. The biggest sponsor of this type of research is the Federal Government, often funding scientific studies through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA.

Techniques currently in development include functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or fMRI. It takes pictures of brain activity in real time and is being used to learn reactions of the brain to figure out if someone is lying, their sexual orientation, if they have racist tendencies, if they are extroverted, and countless other things. It is the closest that we have come to "mind reading."

DARPA is funding an "Enhanced Human Performance" project. Augmenting cognition, or increasing brain function, is one of the goals of this project. This can be accomplished by inserting a chip in a soldier's brain and increasing the bandwidth of brain activity.

The drug Modanafil has also been developed and can keep people awake for days at a time without the need for sleep or calories. This has already been made available in the private sector under the name Provigil.

This barely scratches the surface of an emerging issue about which the Center for American Progress hopes to begin a public discussion. The potential implications of this issue on civil liberties is enormous. It warrants much scrutiny until acceptable legal and ethical standards are created. There should also be a balance between using these new advances for national defense and using it in the private sector where it can be used to improve the lives of everyday Americans.


'The Matrix' is a step closer to reality; Neuroscientists break code on sight

In the sci-fi movie "The Matrix," a cable running from a computer into Neo's brain writes in visual perceptions, and Neo's brain can manipulate the computer-created world. In reality, scientists cannot interact directly with the brain because they do not understand enough about how it codes and decodes information.

Image: Neurons in a purely visual brain region called the inferotemporal (IT) cortex respond selectively to different images. As pictures were randomly presented to the monkey during specific intervals (top), neurons at different sites in IT produce distinct patterns of activity to each picture (bottom). For example, neurons at site 1 favor the toy and the yam, while neurons at site 3 prefer the monkey face and the cat. Image courtesy / Poggio/DiCarlo labs

Now, neuroscientists in the McGovern Institute at MIT have been able to decipher a part of the code involved in recognizing visual objects. Practically speaking, computer algorithms used in artificial vision systems might benefit from mimicking these newly uncovered codes.

The study, a collaboration between James DiCarlo's and Tomaso Poggio's labs, appears in the Nov. 4 issue of Science.

"We want to know how the brain works to create intelligence," said Poggio, the Eugene McDermott Professor in Brain Sciences and Human Behavior. "Our ability to recognize objects in the visual world is among the most complex problems the brain must solve. Computationally, it is much harder than reasoning." Yet we take it for granted because it appears to happen automatically and almost unconsciously.

"This work enhances our understanding of how the brain encodes visual information in a useful format for brain regions involved in action, planning and memory," said DiCarlo, an assistant professor of neuroscience.

In a fraction of a second, visual input about an object runs from the retina through increasingly higher levels of the visual stream, continuously reformatting the information until it reaches the highest purely visual level, the inferotemporal (IT) cortex. The IT cortex identifies and categorizes the object and sends that information to other brain regions.

To explore how the IT cortex formats that output, the researchers trained monkeys to recognize different objects grouped into categories, such as faces, toys and vehicles. The images appeared in different sizes and positions in the visual field. Recording the activity of hundreds of IT neurons produced a large database of IT neural patterns generated in response to each object under many different conditions.

Then, the researchers used a computer algorithm, called a classifier, to decipher the code. The classifier was used to associate each object -- say, a monkey's face -- with a particular pattern of neural signals, effectively decoding neural activity. Remarkably, the classifier found that just a split second's worth of the neural signal contained specific enough information to identity and categorize the object, even at positions and sizes the classifier had not previously "seen."

It was quite surprising that so few IT neurons (several hundred out of millions) for such a short period of time contained so much precise information. "If we could record a larger population of neurons simultaneously, we might find even more robust codes hidden in the neural patterns and extract even fuller information," Poggio said.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #113 on: March 16, 2008, 04:49:45 PM »
The Incredible Appeal of Brain Chips and the Global Hive-Mind
Outlaw News . March 29, 2007

We would all do well to never take tragedy lightly. However, we as a species seem to forget about, or become numb to, even the most horrific of tragedies as we grow accustomed to them. This is no doubt the result of a primitive survival mechanism; if we were to forever mourn each of the horrors we are exposed to in day-to-day life, we would break down completely.

I doubt many are comfortable with the matter, but most of us are pretty well settled in with the existence of a tragic campaign by former Bush cabinet member Tommy Thompson and the Digital Angel Corporation to implant microchips under people’s skin. Few, however have reached this sort of understanding about the brain chip. With many people still in the dark about the fact that a fully developed neural interface even exists, the implications are yet to sink deep enough into the collective consciousness for us to even register our disgust. It is still a bizarre, confusing, and almost hard to believe fact of life.

Sadly, the brain chip is here, now, and the push has already started.

Nanowires form good links with neurons (Image: Charles Lieber)

The marketing and promotion of the brain chip is a hardcore psychological operation, just as all advertisement is. Every aspect of our humanness will be exploited to the limit in an effort to force us all into accepting the Darwinian inevitability of giving up our individual consciousness to a global hive-mind.

As pitiful and pathetic as it is, the majority of the slaves will line up based on the sex-marketing alone. People will camp out, like they do to get Playstation 3’s and Star Wars tickets, for the chance to fornicate in virtual reality with Paris Hilton or some other anorexic teenage whore.

And think of the potential for video games, communication, blogging and security - you can’t think of the potential, because it’s limitless.

On Boston University’s page, and probably every other University’s page, one can find an “Ethical Assessment of Implantable Brain Chips” by Ellen M. McGee, Director Emerita, Founding Director, and Associate for Bioethics at The Long Island Center for Ethics of Long Island University and Gerald Q. Maguire Jr., Professor of Computer Science, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). Here the debate is framed, and both possible lines of logic are fed to us, as if we were small, retarded children.

From the abstract:

The ethical evaluation in this paper focuses on issues of safely and informed consent, issues of manufacturing and scientific responsibility, anxieties about the psychological impacts of enhancing human nature, worries about possible usage in children, and most troubling, issues of privacy and autonomy. Inasmuch as this technology is fraught with perilous implications for radically changing human nature, for invasions of privacy and for governmental control of individuals, public discussion of its benefits and burdens should be initiated, and policy decisions should be made as to whether its development should be proscribed or regulated, rather than left to happenstance, experts and the vagaries of the commercial market.

Wonderful! We can have a discussion, how marvelous! I can’t wait to tell these psychopathic bastards what I think of Brain Chips.

Oh, but wait. I don’t get to be involved in that “public discussion”, do I? No, no - I suppose not. Neither do you. That is a job for the people with the Special Degrees. Thirty-third degree eugenicist professors of psychometry and the like. Don’t worry though, they represent us and/or our interests. They have nothing but each of our individual well being in mind. They won’t use glitzy advertisement and psycho-emotional manipulation to help a sick-minded scientific dictatorship turn the masses of useless eaters into mindless, soulless automatons, hooked into a worldwide slave grid.

I’m comforted knowing we have such noble beacons of morality to decide for us the ethical implications of such monumental and insane plots as sacrificing our souls to a digital hive-mind; if people were left to make their own decisions about morality in the midst of this psychedelic science-fiction debacle/HP Lovecraft horror-show that we now seem to find ourselves in, the natural Darwinian progress of civilization and the search for the greater good could be effectively stifled.

Before discussing at length many of the limitless ‘plus good’ benefits of the brain chip, from telepathy, fluency in languages you’ve never heard, and recognizing people you’ve never met to seeing in infrared, constant, instant access to encyclopedic volumes of information, and total recall/Strange Days-style memory implants, the concerned professional interjects that:

Once networked the result will be a “collective consciousness”, “the hive mind.” “The hive mind…is about taking all these trillions of cells in our skulls that make individual consciousness and putting them together and arriving at a new kind of consciousness that transcends all the individuals.”

We are then told that there are some who oppose the concept of brain chipping:

Not every computer scientist views such prospects with equanimity. Michael Dertouzos writes, “even if it would someday be possible to convey such higher-level information to the brain — and that is a huge technical “If” — we should not do it. Bringing light impulses to the visual cortex of a blind person would justify such an intrusion, but unnecessarily tapping into the brain is a violation of our bodies, of nature, and for many, of God’s design.”

This succinctly formulates the essentialist and creationist argument against the implantable chip.

Now folks, this is priceless. This chip is going to turn you into a mindless zombie slave, and they’re telling us that the people who oppose it oppose it because they’re ‘creationists’? Excuse me while I bash my f**king head against the wall.

‘Creationist’ is an emotional-trigger key word on par with ‘holocaust denier’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’; the people who’ve pointed out the flaws of Darwinism have been ostracized and deemed witches; terrorists. The point is that they use this buzz word, ‘creationist’, not because it makes sense that stupid religious followers would be the only ones to take issue with a hive-mind concept, but because people function and make decisions based on these programmed emotional triggers. This is how they manufacture your thoughts and govern your soul.

Desperate paraplegics have played the guinea-pigs for brain chip research.

If these people were employing logic instead of neuro-linguistic programming commands, why do they not mention that Christians consider this to be the ‘mark of the beast’, as that is the obvious, public argument being made by Christians. I have not found a single scholarly article promoting this brain chip that mentions it, whereas they all mention that the sole resisters of the chip will be Christians who think technology is evil because they’re so simple minded.

Don’t think for one second any mention of these chips deleting your soul will be permitted in this public debate that only elite psychopathic university men are allowed to participate in; forty lashes and execution at dawn for any cowboy who strays from the official talking points.

This is madness. The fact that there is a single dumb bastard on the face of the planet that would swallow this tripe makes me ashamed to be human.

Now, though I suspect the elite will remain unchipped - think of the Controllers of “A Brave New World” - the plan is for the profane goyim-cattle to eventually start getting jacked-in to the matrix immediately upon exiting the womb.

This, I believe, goes beyond a plan to monitor all of our thoughts. The obvious intention of the psychopaths is to have our individual consciousness, our soul, if you will, turned off. When the product is first released to the public however, I don’t expect folks to just start coming home from the chipping facility as brain-dead zombies. Neither do I expect them to at that point have significantly developed enough AI to conceal from the person's friends and family that they had had their consciousness erased; behavior and personality changes would be clear.

It is of utmost importance that the first wave of consumers to get fitted with the brain chip present a state to be envied. They will keep their consciousness at first. The chip, having the capabilities to exercise full spectrum dominance over the functions of the brain, will be able to release endorphins, putting the individual in the state of constant mania and orgasmic joy that is so sought after in this blasphemous “age of reason”.

I also speculate that those people who volunteer for the beta test (which will no doubt be free or almost free given the incentives, and come with all sorts of various ‘friend of the beast’ social perks), though temporarily retaining their own selfhood, will be utterly controlled on a subconscious level, which we have all been trained to make our decisions based on anyway. For instance, the chip could replace any subconscious grudges you may hold against your mother with feelings of love and forgiveness, and so you will interact with her on level more appealing to her, which she will consciously or unconsciously associate with your having been chipped. This is just a single example of what would be a widespread, scientifically-calculated program to use those who are chipped to advertise to those who are not. I also expect that users will be flooded with contempt for those people who ‘think they are too good’ to get chipped, encouraging the chastisement and dissociation with anyone who may be ideologically or intellectually inclined to remain human.

This will continue until a targeted portion of the world population has succumbed; the world is likely to be even more unbearable than it is now in the near future, and people will long for euphoric state that they have found their follows in.

[Note: One of the factors to keep in mind when theorizing about the capacities of such a device is that it will function as little more than a wireless card, hooking your brain into global supercomputers in real time (thus the cellphone towers everywhere and the push to have wi-fi ‘everywhere in the world’). Bugs will be worked out and upgrades installed in real time. The system will be upgraded constantly in a scientific manner.]

When the target number is reached, the proverbial switch will be flipped, and the conscious thinking minds of the chipped individuals will be deleted.

Game over.

Those who retain cognitive functionality will by this time probably have become totally despised by the better part of society, and anyway not be able to notice the switch-over, the conscious behaviors of those that are ‘hooked-in’ having already been bizarre and frightening. Maybe they’ll let us die off, maybe they’ll hunt us down; who knows.

What we are facing is shaping up to be the greatest tragedy of all time. Rough times are ahead. Whatever happens in the coming years, we must always remember who we are, and maintain our connection to humanity, and to the infinite. We must never be willing to sacrifice what we are, and to keep it we must refuse to be broken. The entirety of the wars and death and sex and mass hysteria that has gone on is leading up to this: erasing the last sacred vestiges of our humanity, turning the vast, diverse body of intelligence, creativity and love into a mindless robotic slave force on a digital grid.

Remember this: no matter how bad it gets, don’t get chipped – death is infinitely preferable; if it comes down to it, know that fighting like a man is the only thing that can ensure you’ll die like one.

Stay free.


Offline jassy

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #114 on: March 17, 2008, 02:53:34 AM »
We will stay free and chipping shall not even enter as an option. Thanks again from me and a whole bunch of mates who have read your site. They are not happier for reading it but they are a whole lot wiser.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #115 on: March 18, 2008, 08:12:48 PM »
We will stay free and chipping shall not even enter as an option.
I'm glad to hear it, but unfortunately, it will probably be much more difficult than it sounds at the moment.  I mean, if you decide you're never taking one no matter what, then that's that, but many people will take one for the sake of convenience.  The microchip implant is already being used to pay for drinks in nightclubs.  If that spreads until we are in a situation where it is unusual not to buy things with a microchip implant, then it becomes more and more difficult to refuse one, but not impossible.  Ideally, we want to reach people with these warnings long before it gets to that stage, so I am very grateful that you have told your friends, and no doubt some of them will tell other people and so on.

I am not a religious man, but I can't help noticing the bit about people not being able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast, in Revelations.  This could well be about to happen in the next 10-20 years or so.  And if it does, then it will be very difficult not to accept one.  I know I won't ever volunteer to have a microchip implant, and I know many others won't either, but the elite are very patient.  They will target the children, and if we are not very vocal in our opposition, and persistent, continuously, then they could grow up in a world where microchip implants are normal.  And then our generation will die off, and the next generation see that their parents have had chips all their lives.  It is no future for humanity.  And when you introduce the brainchip into that scenario too, we are literally talking about the end of humanity as we know it, and that is the goal of the elite.  We must fight this agenda, and we must not stop fighting it.  They have our future planned out, and if we allow it, they will bring about a brainchipped society living in an inescapable prison, serving the elite at all times.

Thanks again from me and a whole bunch of mates who have read your site. They are not happier for reading it but they are a whole lot wiser.
You're welcome.
If you haven't already, listen to the Alan Watt mp3s in the opening post.  They are extremely important and probably more informative than everything else in this thread.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #116 on: March 18, 2008, 08:17:46 PM »

Researchers Develop Chip That Could be Powered by Body Heat
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - March 18, 2008 7:08 PM

The Chip Mounted in Plastic  (Source: MIT)

MIT Researchers with Low Voltage Chip  (Source: MIT)

New chip design uses only 0.3V of power

Back in February a group of researchers from MIT and Texas Instruments designed a new chip for portable devices that uses a mere fraction of the power required in similar chips today. The researchers were able to design a chip that may be up to ten times as energy efficient as current technology.

Current chips operate at about 1 volt and the new design from the MIT researchers operates on 0.3 volts of power. Anantha Chadrakasan, Professor of Electrical Engineering told MIT Energy Initiative, “Memory and logic circuits have to be redesigned to operate at very low power supply voltages. Chadrakasan directs the MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratories, where the work was conducted.

Simply reducing the voltage required for the chip to operate wasn’t the only trick the researchers used to get energy savings for the chip. The researchers also optimized the energy processing circuitry to account for several factors including environmental conditions and variations in circuit demands.

One key to the efficient nature of the new chip design according to Chadrakasan says was a high-efficiency DC-to-DC converter used to reduce voltage to lower levels built right onto the chip. At this point the chip design is only a proof of concept and significant obstacles remain to be overcome before the chip can enter production and ultimately end up in your cell phone. Researchers say that one of the biggest problems they had to overcome was the variability in chip manufacturing.

Lower voltage levels mean that differences in variations and imperfections in the chip building process are magnified and become a problem. Chadrakasan says that commercial applications for the new chip could be seen in five years or sooner. The researchers are also looking at applications for the low voltage chip other than in electronics.

Since the chip can operate on such low power requirements, the researchers also believe it could be used in implantable devices like pacemakers. In this application the chip would be able to get all the power it needs from body heat or the movement of the person with the implant. This would allow implantable devices to be powered indefinitely. Battery life is currently a very big concern for implantable medical devices.

One of the main reasons cited for the lack of encryption on telemetry data sent from pacemakers and internal defibrillators is the added strain encryption would put on the battery inside the devices. A low power chip that gets all the power it needs from the body may be just what is needed to allow stronger security in implanted medical devices.

These researchers aren’t alone in their quest for lower voltage, less power hungry chips and processors. Intel recently introduced its Atom processor which is a full x86 processor and requires only 0.6W of power. The Atom processor still consumes more power than the 0.3V design from MIT.

Offline PatriotX

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
  • When pawns come to life, things get interesting...
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #117 on: March 30, 2008, 11:06:13 AM »

Always interesting, fascinating, shocking, and VERY relevant thread.  Thanks to Matrix for all the work here.

Patriot X
Whose Game Are You Playing?

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,635
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #118 on: April 03, 2008, 05:50:46 PM »

Here's an interesting April Fool's joke, which can serve as a vehicle for predictive programming and other kinds of conditioning.  Notice that the time given is 12noon - when April Fool's jokes are supposed to stop.

ID cards scrapped in favour of RFID implants for infants

Author: Ian Grant
Posted: 12:00 01 Apr 2008

The government is to scrap its controversial £30 voluntary ID card system in favour of having every child born in the UK implanted at birth with a free radio frequency-based (RFID) identity marker.

The plan is part of a £100bn 10-year project to put the UK at the forefront of post-internet information technology. It will lead to new grid-based network technology, new information processing and storage systems for "pervasive computing", and new massively parallel programming techniques, the government said.

Children born to cabinet members from next year would be the first to receive the implants. These will guarantee their access to privileged government facilities and services.

Announcing the scheme a government spokeswoman said it would return Britain to its rightful place as the world's IT technology leader, as it was during the Second World War. It had swapped many of the information theory and technology secrets developed by the code breakers at Bletchley Park for butter and guns from America, and this had let the US gain the lead, she said.
"The future is about pervasive, personal computing, and the national identity scheme is the perfect platform on which to build it," she said.

>> Read more on the Editor's Blog

Offline PatriotX

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
  • When pawns come to life, things get interesting...
Re: The Microchip Agenda
« Reply #119 on: April 03, 2008, 10:07:38 PM »
Say it isn't so Matrix....

AHHHHH.  I am feeling tingly all over in anticipation of refusing their "mandates"......

Patriot X
Whose Game Are You Playing?