Epigraph Quotes:
1) “The CDC’s National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System (NCSS) is an integrated system that uses state-of-the-art data sources, tools, and analytic methods to track the epidemiology of neurological conditions. The aim of the system is to derive actionable* and timely information to increase understanding of neurological conditions and catalyze research into causes, diagnosis, and treatment.”
From: National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System (NNCSS)
2) “Neuroscience captures $175 billion dollars annual market space…. The brain is the next battlespace…. We are targeting the brain…. We need to recon (the) target area (i.e., the domestic population) in order to: 1) acquire viable targets and 2) avoid collateral damage. Like (in) any race, the morbidity and mortality, going at this speed… is real.
We are tracking neurological or brain signatures of key targeted individuals that are thought to represent whole groups. If I understand how his or her brain works and do this on a broad enough scale, I can develop patterns and I can use this in ways that informs my intelligence; this force multiplies and synergizes my human intelligence (HUMINT), my signals intelligence (SIGINT), and my communications intelligence (COMINT). NEURINT (Neuro intelligence) coupled with assessment and access gives me these capabilities….
I can utilize neuro-pharmacologics and various forms of brain stimulation to extract information from key intelligence targets.”
3) “(Regarding the weaponization of neuroscience): That level of deep surveillance… examines the idea of what type of surveillance and its informational transfer and ultimately actionability*, would obtain and entail… What is really required in that type of deep surveillance that carries it through for the acquisition of information all the way to actionable entities* that would then target certain things to be able to then mitigate our strategic competitors’ and/or adversaries’ (Webmaster: targeted individuals) efforts in this area would require more “a whole of nation approach.” Where now we have almost a seamless triangulation between government entities, research entities, and commercial entities that are then able to mobilize those resources in the deep surveillance that is necessary for acknowledging, addressing, and assessing relative risks that may become threats, quantifying the risk to threat index, and then identifying what aspects of those quantifiable risks are mitigable and/or preventable, and then engaging the resources that are necessary to do that (i.e, “mitigate”/”take out” the “threat”/”targeted individual.”)”
4) “Neural nets at the core of AI involve over a trillion dollars of financial trading… So neuro is likely a game changer, and it has much larger impact domains when it’s in the wild (webmaster: i.e., secretly used against “targets” in society)…. Neuronal self-assembly and nano-technology…. one of the factors of neuro-science – The dark side is the weaponization of these technologies… These (Cuban and Chinese) embassy attacks are directed, purposeful, and targeted at a particular population that is targeted and chosen…” Neurotechnology will drive the next “hybrid war,” which has already started… Everything that can be made can be hacked. Neuro-hacking includes the ability to create thoughts and blend it with AI. These devices that we think were used externally or possibly internally (in the Cuban embassy attacks). Or they are are tied to other sensors, or flyables, drones… Neuro-hacking allows us to adjust memories at the nano-scale.
I came up with the concept of “Dark Networks” when I was advising SOCOM (US Special Operations Command) on this concept of “Bad Guy Hunting-Targeting”….. Just like Wal-Mart has a supply chain, Dark Networks have supply chains. Their goal is to produce disruption and conflict. So if you are in the Bad-Guy Hunting Business (i.e., the targeted individual program!), you’ve got to have a supply chain.
5) “This (“targeted individual program”) is the most important policy of the US government.”
Dr. Rauni Kilde, former Chief Medical Officer of Northern Finland, Targeted Individual, author of “Bright Light on Black Shadows” (2015)
6) “Multiple previous articles discussed U.S. federal government laws on “biosurveillance” which suggest at least the possibility of the federal government intent of achieving “real-time” “mind reading” and “mind control.”
Robert L. Kinney III, This article
7) “No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine.”
William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower (2005)
Webmaster Comment: *I highlight the word “actionable” in the mission statement of the CDC’s National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System (NCSS) AND statements by DARPA consultant and Georgetown University neuroscientist, Dr. James Giordano, because it is my understanding that the term has particular connotations in both the military and legal realms. In the military realm, “actionable” refers to situations in which the military has authority to intervene with combat or covert actions, i.e., conventional or unconventional warfare. The use of this same legal/military term in the NCSS mission statement and repeated statements by Giordano is not coincidence.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the US government is targeting me as well as hundreds of thousands of others in America and millions worldwide in this (and related) nefarious and highly unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral programs. Many thanks to the very, very smart author of this article, Robert L. Kinney III, for explaining how “neurological surveillance” became legalized and, I dare say, normalized in our exceedingly sick society.
I believe this nefarious covert operation probably relates directly to research and development of technologies to be widely deployed against the American people and other populations in the UN’s biomedical police state, aka Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset. These technologies are used to monitor, control, and destroy the minds of citizens. The UN Biomedical Police State plan, now very near implementation, is outlined in this very recent interview of Dr. Francis Boyle, biowarfare expert and law professor at the University of Illinois.
Insider: The UN Pandemic Treaty Establishes a Global Police State
The CDC’s (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System
See: CDC is NOT a ‘Federal’ agency, just like the ‘Federal Reserve’, NOT Federal and NO Reserve..
2) National Biosurveillance Integration Center of the Department of Homeland Security
3) 42 U.S. Code § 280g–7a – Surveillance of neurological diseases
4) Federal Bureau of Surveillance and Stalking* (FBI)
5) Centers for Decision Control and Prevention*
(* The latter two agency names are creative modifications of existing agencies by the article’s author.)
Tricky, tricky, tricky, that’s our government. In fact, according to Cheryl Welsh (lawyer, researcher, and TI), government electronic mind manipulation and mind control targeting of innocent Americans has been carried out under the auspices of nonconsensual experimentation at least since 1955, that is, during the CIA’s top-secret MKULTRA mind control program. These kinds of civilian targeting operations have been carried out in America on behalf of the rich and powerful at least since the turn of the 19th century with police departments’ Red Squad terror programs. The “Global War on Terrorism” is simply a pretext to prosecute continual hybrid warfare AND nonconsensual weapons testing and biomedical experimentation against any “enemy du jour,” be they “political enemies,” “dissidents,” “whistleblowers,” or any nations, groups or individuals currently considered enemies of government.
(See: US Government/CIA/Pentagon Mind Control and Torture Of Innocent Civilians: Cheryl Welsh; 13 Articles)
I. Obama-Biden administration legalized ‘neurological surveillance’ by Robert L. Kinney III (Jan. 23, 2023)
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/obama-biden-administration-legalized-neurological-surveillance-after-trumps-election/
Laws enacted by the Obama-Biden administration, including after Trump’s 2016 election but before he took office, disturbingly require ‘real-time’ neurological surveillance.
BERLIN, GERMANY – NOVEMBER 18: US president Barack Obama attends talks with western European leaders at the Chancellery on November 18, 2016 in Berlin, Germany.Obama and Merkel will hold talks with British Prime Minister Theresa May, French President Francois Hollande, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy today on Obama’s last trip to Europe as U.S. President. (Photo by Michael Ukas – Pool /Getty Images)
Robert L. Kinney III
Fri Jan 27, 2023 – 4:53 pm EST
(LifeSiteNews) — This article provides a new discussion on “biosurveillance,” and specifically the “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” laws enacted in December 2016 (which was during the Obama-Biden administration and, potentially significantly, after President Donald Trump was elected). The neurological (which includes the brain) surveillance laws may be significant suggestions of the U.S. federal government’s surveillance activities and could be interpreted as attempts at such legal protection for “brain surveillance” which would also be described as “neurological surveillance.”
Obama-Biden admin legalized neurological surveillance after Trump was elected
Multiple previous articles discussed U.S. federal government laws on “biosurveillance” which suggest at least the possibility of the federal government intent of achieving “real-time” “mind reading” and “mind control.”
If the U.S. or other governments planned on developing technologies for “brain” or “neurological” surveillance and/or brain or neurological control, it is necessary to emphasize that the U.S. or other governments would probably use the most extensive propaganda methods possible to make anyone and everyone think that it is crazy to suggest “mind reading” or “mind control” are possible, let alone possible for a government to do secretly and from an unknown location.
READ: US gov’t used fake propaganda to deceive millions in the past. Why wouldn’t it do so now?
And if neuroscientists were going to develop brain recording (“mind reading”) technologies that could be used for surveillance, they would probably want to make sure they were protected by U.S. federal law. There are other U.S. federal laws (in addition to “biosurveillance” laws) which might suggest that the government intended to develop and use brain surveillance or “neurological surveillance” technologies.
One such law on a new “neurological surveillance system” was enacted in 2016.
First, though, it is necessary to describe a different U.S. federal law on biosurveillance, which was enacted in 2013. In 2013, the Obama-Biden administration enacted a law that required the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the National Biodefense Science Board to:
“identify any duplicative surveillance [biosurveillance] programs under the authority of the Secretary, or changes that are necessary to existing programs, in order to enhance and modernize such activities, minimize duplication, strengthen and streamline such activities under the authority of the Secretary, and achieve real-time and appropriate data that relate to disease activity, both human and zoonotic.” (127 STAT. 178) (See: 127 STAT. 161 PUBLIC LAW 113–5—MAR. 13, 2013
The law required surveillance systems to “achieve real-time and appropriate data that relate to disease activity, both human and zoonotic.” It is necessary to emphasize that the “biosurveillance” network or networks were required to “achieve real-time … data” for human diseases. “Real-time data” implies knowledge resulting from “surveillance” of the situation of humans at every moment, which apparently includes prior to diagnosis by a physician or other practitioner.
In other words, “surveillance” almost certainly is not intended to merely mean “counting the number of diagnosed cases” of a disease.
Then, in 2016, the U.S. federal government enacted another law to legalize “The National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System.” “Neurological conditions” includes those of the human brain. The 2016 law is partially provided as follows:
SURVEILLANCE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISEASES
In General − The Secretary [of HHS], acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and in coordination with other agencies as the Secretary determines, shall, as appropriate—
(1) enhance and expand infrastructure and activities to track the epidemiology of neurological diseases; and
(2) incorporate information obtained through such activities into an integrated surveillance system, which may consist of or include a registry, to be known as the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System. (130 STAT. 1077)
The same act (which was enacted by the Obama-Biden administration after President Trump was elected) also provides funding for former President Obama’s Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. (130 STAT. 1040) (See: 130 STAT. 1033 PUBLIC LAW 114–255—DEC. 13, 2016
In other words, the U.S. government, if it is taken literally, legalized human brain surveillance. And the previously mentioned “biosurveillance” law, other federal government “biosurveillance” laws, and “National Biosurveillance Integration Center” laws apparently require that this “neurological surveillance” is expected to be in “real-time.” If this is interpreted literally, it would mean the legalizing of real-time brain surveillance.
There are a few more points to be made about the above “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System.” One is that the U.S. government could have not used the word “surveillance,” and instead could have called it something like, “National Frequency of Neurological Diseases System.”
By using the word “surveillance,” apparently the U.S. government implied that the “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” would also be governed by the federal government “biosurveillance” laws. Those laws require “real-time” surveillance. “Real-time neurological surveillance” is mind reading, although the laws do not use those words.
The use of the words “incorporate information obtained through such activities into an integrated surveillance system” implies that it is likely to be included in the “system” used by the Department of Homeland Security’s National Biosurveillance Integration Center. The National Biosurveillance Integration Center laws require the use of “the best available statistical and other analytical tools to identify and characterize biological events of national concern in as close to real-time as is practicable.” Those laws also require the surveillance to “detect, as early as possible” potential terrorist attacks. Detecting, “as early as possible,” would be when thoughts occur in the brain, although the law does not use those words.
(Webmaster comment: “Detecting potential terrorist attacks” is essentially the same as “preventing violence in the brain” (1960s and 70s CIA terms) and “pre-crime” (more modern term). Several CIA MKULTRA mind control subprojects focused on “preventing violence in the brain” back in the 1960s and 1970s, specifically, through such CIA spychiatrists as Dr. Louis Jolyon West (UCLA) as well as Drs. William Sweet, Vernon H. Mark, and Frank R. Ervin. These “weaponized” doctors and psychiatrists deliberately destroyed the lives of their patients using drugs and electromagnetic weapons. (See “The Minds of Men:” History of Cybernetics, Totalitarian Brain Science, & Satanic Technosorcerers; 2018 Documentary by A. & M. Dykes w/ Notes And Transcription by Dr. E. Karlstrom and Descent Into Hell: MKULTRA’s Torture Doctors, Scientists, Spies, & Politicians: Hall of Shame Rogues Gallery). The idea of curing “violence in the brain” and/or insanity have always been cover-stories used to legitimize goverments’ destroying dissenters and other political enemies. This pattern traces back over a century to the Red Squads of American police departments at the turn of 19th century and has a long and mostly suppressed history.)
Another point is that “epidemiology” in The National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System law above is not defined. There are several different definitions of “epidemiology.” For example, the CDC includes “domestic violence” “investigations” and “community homicides” in its examples of “epidemiology.” The CDC defines “epidemiology” in this way:
Epidemiology is the method used to find the causes of health outcomes and diseases in populations. In epidemiology, the patient is the community and individuals are viewed collectively. By definition, epidemiology is the study (scientific, systematic, and data-driven) of the distribution (frequency, pattern) and determinants (causes, risk factors) of health-related states and events (not just diseases) in specified populations (neighborhood, school, city, state, country, global). It is also the application of this study to the control of health problems [emphasis added]
It should not be surprising that the CDC has a draconian, and absurd, definition of “epidemiology.” “Health-related states and events (not just diseases)” includes every human action and every human thought, since thinking is a “health-related state.” This is often said with the phrase, a person’s “state of mind.” If the CDC wants to know your “state of mind,” the above law with the CDC’s definition of “epidemiology” apparently allows for surveillance of your “state of mind.”
Again, it should also be emphasized that the CDC describes such “surveillance” in other laws as being “in real-time.” This may imply “real-time” surveillance of the “state” (“health-related states”) of mind, or “real-time” mind reading. Or, to put it in more scientific terms, the “real-time” “surveillance” of the “neurological condition” of every human being.
And it may imply potential “mind control,” or more scientifically, “neurological condition” control, by the CDC. The CDC says that “Epidemiology … is also the … control of health problems.” Thus, the “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” described in the law above, which is to be operated by the CDC, would include “control” of “neurological conditions,” or “mind control,” by the CDC.
Another point is that the above law mentions “in coordination with other agencies.” What other agencies could be so interested in “neurological conditions surveillance?” Possibly the federal bureau known for using the most extensive surveillance imaginable?
Another point is that, actually, the above law legalizing “neurological condition surveillance” by the CDC and “in coordination with other agencies,” and implied to be “in real-time,” is probably more specific than if the U.S. federal government used the more common words of “mind reading” or “mind control.” “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” in “real-time” undoubtedly refers to the physical and chemical “condition” of the human brain. And it is a “national … system,” which means everyone in America.
Thus, U.S. government officials might use similar words to those in the law above if scientists or others working for the U.S. government wanted to legalize brain surveillance and brain control while remaining somewhat secretive.
Morally corrupt government officials are not likely to reveal themselves
It is necessary to thoroughly emphasize that there could be many evil employees in government entities (like the FBI, intelligence community, Department of Homeland Security, other secret police entities, or local police entities) who want to surveil and control everything that occurs in every person’s brain. Such persons might also support the use of remote and secret torture technologies. There are several examples throughout history of evil people who get into “law enforcement” or other government entities with the intent of targeting persons to torture those persons.
Such evil government employees, even those of communist governments, are not likely to publicly say:
“Citizens of this country: as many of you likely already concluded with common sense, the ultimate goal of the “biosurveillance” of the Federal Bureau of Surveillance and Stalking, the local secret police, and other relevant federal departments and agencies was to achieve real-time surveillance and real-time control of human behavior, including for the use of forcing you to make optimal decisions (page 69), to be determined by the Bureau, or the Secretary acting through the Centers for Decision Control and Prevention.
Since the discovery of phenomena like radio waves, x-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, and other medical and physical technologies that we are not going to tell you about, the Bureau, its scientists, and other relevant federal departments and agencies have been secretly advancing such innovative technologies available for many years to be perfected for use as brain surveillance, brain and behavior control, and torture technologies.
Your common sense was accurate in suggesting that technologies such as radar technologies, technologies used in metal detectors, functional magnetic resonance imaging, remote heat sensing technologies, x-ray technologies, gene-altering technologies, very small magnetic particles or sensors to be put in the human body through food and water which are required for survival and thus cannot be avoided, government-forced injections with substances that cause your body to be more susceptible to remotely caused muscle twitches, itching, and remotely caused thoughts and emotions in the brain, including other technologies that we are not going to tell you about, can be perfected for such use.
To prepare for such draconian surveillance and control of human behavior and thinking, we fooled you all with many years of propaganda to make you think you were crazy for arriving at the common sense conclusions that mind reading and control are possible with advanced innovative technologies. It is amazing how effective words like “nobody would do that!” or “you are sick” or “that is paranoia” can be.
And it is amazing how many people trust us government officials who support the most evil and anti-reason things, including murder of human beings by saying such murder is “health care,” and including males who say they are female being employed by the highest levels of the government, including the Centers for Decision Control and Prevention, and other relevant federal departments and agencies.
Such extensive, many years worth, propaganda efforts were also used to convey false or misleading information about such brain technologies; “brain implants” are not necessary to achieve real-time remote mind reading and remote mind control. Even so, remote mind reading and remote mind control is not only possible, but we have been using it for several years, all while we told you that you were crazy for suggesting such technologies were possible.
Of course, we did actually tell you some truth in that we told you that we would use propaganda, including the use of law enforcement hoaxes and including “conveying false and misleading information.” We even published propaganda of criticism of ourselves, the Bureau, and other relevant federal departments and agencies; some refer to this as controlling the narrative and flooding the zone.
Thus, though extensive tin-foil-hat propaganda and other hoaxes were used, it cannot be said that we did not warn you; when we said we were going to use advanced innovative “biosurveillance” technology to “gather real-time biological data” for “prediction” and “prevention” and to “detect, as early as possible,” threats from “all-hazards” “using an information technology system that uses the best available statistical and other analytical tools,” what we meant was that we were going use advanced innovative biosurveillance technology to gather real-time biological data to predict and detect, as early as possible, threats from all-hazards, using an information technology system that uses the best available statistical and other analytical tools.
“Surveillance,” of course, means “surveillance.” Surveillance does not mean counting the number of people with symptoms of a disease.
And when we said, “as early as possible,” we meant “as early as possible.” And “as early as possible” is when the “threat” is in the brain, and “the best available statistical and other tools” obviously includes advanced innovative brain recording and manipulating technologies, including those Department of Energy high-end computing systems, which we said would be used for advancing innovative brain technologies.
And “innovative,” in “innovative biosurveillance technologies,” of course, means, innovative. Electronic medical records are not “innovative.” Counting the number of people diagnosed with a coronavirus is not “innovative.”
Instead, remote mind reading and mind control technologies, remote sensing technologies, surveillance technologies that see through buildings and can surveil every human being at every moment of their life, and similar technologies we aren’t going to tell you about, are “innovative technologies,” although our extensive, many years of propaganda told you that you were crazy for suggesting such common sense possibilities.
Of course, we used other words like “brain manipulation” and “perturbation” instead of “mind control,” and “brain recording” and “monitoring” instead of “mind reading” or “brain surveillance,” but we did indeed tell you our plans for remote mind reading and remote mind and decision control.
We even implied we would use remote brain and remote body torture; the guidelines for the Federal Bureau of Surveillance and Stalking say that the Bureau may commit “injury” and “violence.” Secret and remote torture, which causes injury to the brain, is implied, including through the use of remote and secret torture technologies.
Of course, the Bureau only secretly uses torture to protect national health security against potential public health threats, to help you make optimal decisions, and to influence institutions into supporting anti-reason falsehoods such as gender ideology, sexual identity, and “gay marriage,” including any other use to be determined by the Bureau or the Secretary acting through the Centers for Decision Control and Prevention, including doing whatever we want, to whoever we want.
In other words, when the Bureau says it secretly commits crimes, violence, and causes injury, what it means is that the Bureau secretly commits crimes, violence, and causes injury. Advanced and innovative remote and secret technologies that surveil and affect the human brain and body make such violence and injury much easier on the Bureau and other relevant Federal departments and agencies. Of course, Bureau employees are too tough for laws, laws are for other people, so we cleverly describe such illegal surveillance and remote and secret causing of injury as “otherwise illegal activity.”
Again, “nobody would ever do that!” and “you are sick!” was very effective here. Extensive propaganda made you think you were crazy for recognizing the obvious fact that a secret police of close to millions of Bureau employees, career law enforcement officers not in uniform, and other relevant secret police departments and agencies is necessary to achieve Bureau plans of the most complete surveillance possible.
And, of course, we got you to think you were crazy for suggesting it, but indeed, the highest and most coveted achievement, treasure, trophy, distinction, the crown jewel, the most valuable possession in the history of law enforcement, the intelligence community, and science alike, would be real-time and remote surveillance and control of the human brain and body.
Therefore, it is with the utmost enthusiasm that we announce that through the use of advancements in genomic engineering technologies (including genome editing technologies) to sensitize human brain and body components to remotely controlled magnetic fields and remotely controlled and focused radio waves, and, through the use of food-energy-water cyber-enabled interfaces, other very small sensors, including other technologies that we are not telling you about, we have achieved real-time remote brain surveillance and control to advance national health security” […etc.]
That is the end of what government officials probably would not publicly say about mind reading and mind and behavior control technologies. Some might think it is an exaggeration, some might think it is crazy. Such people should be reminded that only a few years ago they probably thought “transgenderism” and draconian government actions like lockdowns and government-forced injections would never become accepted as normal in society. Such a person should also study the history of evil people in government.
(The above monologue includes authentic references which could lead to the potentially fictional or potentially true conclusions described in the monologue. It is necessary to specify that COVID mRNA injections may really be a government-forced attempt at preventing a virus which typically results in the common cold which was likely going around many years before the government forced the injections, or the forced injection may be for other purposes. Unfortunately, it appears as though government propaganda was used both in support of mRNA injections and for criticism of mRNA injections, so it is difficult to determine truth.
Similar technologies, though, could likely be used to make body components more susceptible to remotely controlled technologies like radio waves, or technologies which have not been publicly described, which, again, have been used for many years; “magnetogenetics” (page 48) is suggested in U.S. government documents. “Radiogenetics,” or sensitizing cells to radio waves, is described in other literature. For example, remotely causing muscle twitches or movements in a target by genetically sensitizing muscle tissues or cell receptors to remotely controlled stimuli may be possible with such technologies. Think of it being something like being “tasered” with technology that can be focused directly to a specific location in the human body, including the brain, from many miles away. Of course, advanced genetic alteration of the human body or brain may not be necessary to achieve such torture as remotely caused muscle twitches.)
Obviously, governments are likely to keep such technologies as secret as possible. In America, though, scientists, specifically neuroscientists who develop such technologies, might want to make sure they are protected by U.S. federal laws because of the potential that a future Justice Department and politicians might actually be honest and just.
A normal human being would likely say that remote and secret brain surveillance and brain control are both types of torture, illegal, and potentially worthy of the worst possible punishments. Neuroscientists and others involved would probably want attempts at legal protection. U.S. federal laws may provide hints and suggestions that such people tried to provide themselves with legal protection.
FBI has used most complete surveillance imaginable on Americans, extensive propaganda
More information from previous articles necessary here includes the FBI, local police, local and federal secret police, and other U.S. government use of extensive surveillance, secret stalking, secret intimidation, secretly causing harm, and other secret actions.
Another article described the U.S. federal government’s “extensive” propaganda and other lying used to fool millions of people for many years; the government used propaganda to attempt to fool a whole country for many years. (Page 7)
Thus, there is the possibility of U.S. government officials, or foreign governments, using many years of propaganda to fool Americans into thinking it is crazy to suggest that mind control or mind reading may be possible.
It is also necessary to continually emphasize that the U.S. federal government, including the FBI, and even local police in some locations, used what was described as the most complete surveillance imaginable on Americans with the apparent intent to “destroy” those targeted groups and persons. (Pages 6 and 31) This suggests the FBI and some local police have a history of using surveillance as a type of weapon, and if brain surveillance is possible, such entities may use it.
Secret FBI intimidation intended to coerce false confession
Although this is a bit off subject, it may be helpful to some. Previous articles did not mention that a former FBI official suggested that the use of such “secret intimidation” and surveillance (Page 43, Page 5, etc.) might be used to try to coerce the targeted person into falsely confessing of doing something they did not do. (Page 68) The FBI secretly wrote a letter to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that most would describe as a threat against Dr. King; the FBI official apparently suggested such a method might be used to coerce Dr. King into falsely confessing that he was a communist or working for communists. (Page 68)
This should be emphasized: the FBI and some local police entities used secret and “the most complete surveillance imaginable,” (page 31) secret “techniques of destruction” (page 24) which could also accurately be described as torture, and “secret intimidation and harassment” (page 43) to destroy and/or attempt to get a targeted person to say things that the FBI and local police wanted them to say. The FBI and some local police used such torture and/or implied threats in attempt to get a targeted person to falsely confess or to harm themselves. (Page 11) Such methods may be similarly, and unlawfully, used during “questioning” by supposed law enforcement entities.
Thus, one potential secret method of the FBI and local secret police may be such “secret intimidation” and secret stalking, which is intended to torture the targeted person and coerce the targeted person. With Dr. Martin Luther King, the FBI and apparently other law enforcement used hints and suggestions which were apparently interpreted in this way: “confess or else we are going to harm you” or “harm yourself or we are going to harm you.”
Local police may be influenced by foreign governments
The article describing the U.S. federal government use of extensive propaganda did not mention that the U.S. federal government also secretly got into and influenced the local police of another country. (Pages 6-7) This is necessary to emphasize: governments may attempt to secretly influence local police. The federal government may attempt to influence local police or foreign governments may attempt to influence local police in America.
(This is also a bit off subject, but a possibility such as evil people secretly operating local police, the FBI, and other entities is another reason why the names and locations of all current and former government law enforcement, secret police or secret law enforcement, and “intelligence community,” employees and cooperators should likely be required to be publicized.
This suggestion should not be controversial. It is similar to the requirement of many uniformed police who are required to be monitored while they are working. It is necessary to at least attempt to prevent crimes by evil government employees with too much power. Common sense suggests that evil people are simply going to try to get employed by secret police entities like the FBI or other non-uniformed “law enforcement” entities. Thus, they should be required to be publicly identified and monitored in the same way that uniformed police are monitored while working.
All businesses secretly owned and/or operated by the FBI (“proprietary”), local police, or other government entities should also be required to be publicized. Some of these may be obvious; for example, a national Catholic entity with a name which could be used in hints and suggestions schemes due to its obvious connotations, and such a name that most people would not have chosen due to the connotations, might be, at least partially, such a government operated or owned business.)
It is also necessary to emphasize that the FBI and cooperators might be committing such secret actions currently. The FBI’s guidelines on secret operations apparently imply that there may be “a reasonable expectation” that some secret operations will involve “a significant risk of violence or physical injury to individuals or a significant risk of financial loss.” (Pages 6-7)
Was the ‘tinfoil hat’ a government propaganda effort?
It is necessary to again emphasize that the U.S. federal government is very experienced in lying to millions of people for many years. The federal government is experienced with propaganda. If the federal government and local police entities used the most advanced surveillance possible and a plain-clothed, not-in-uniform secret police, it is likely that some people would eventually determine that certain events and occurrences which go on around them are not coincidence and likely require some sort of advanced brain surveillance technologies and a coordinated and supervised plain-clothed, not-in-uniform secret police with many employees. Such technologies would merely only require the perfection of technologies like radar, metal detecting, magnetic resonance imaging, x-ray, electroencephalographic, other technologies which have been available for many years, or other technologies not publicly described.
Would the government want to prepare by spreading lies or other propaganda to make sure nobody would even suggest the possibility of the government using surveillance technologies that can, at least partially, “mind read” or partially “mind control?”
Indeed, one could expect the U.S. federal government to use extensive propaganda campaigns, likely the most extensive propaganda imaginable, to attempt to make sure that even the slightest suggestion of the possibility of “mind reading” remote surveillance technologies would get a person to be accused of being crazy. Most people don’t want to be labeled as crazy. Thus, an extensive propaganda effort might keep most people quiet; for example, a propaganda effort with visuals like tinfoil hats.
Gov’t discussions of brain ‘recording’ and brain activity ‘control’ mean ‘mind reading’ and ‘mind control’
It is apparently really not that crazy to suggest remote technologies which utilize radio waves, technologies used in radar, electromagnetic technologies, x-ray technologies, and other technologies, including technologies that the government probably is not telling Americans about, could be designed to be used remotely and secretly to torture and surveil the human brain.
In fact it is so not-that-crazy that it is actually apparently suggested to be possible to “mind read,” even by the U.S. federal government. Of course, the U.S. federal government does not describe it as “mind reading,” though. It is described with different words like the following:
Our ability to record [brain] electrical activity at the cellular level, in humans, is expanding, providing a unique opportunity to link the activity of individual neurons with more global signals obtained using noninvasive imaging methods such as fMRI [functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging]. In turn, both cellular‐level and global signals can then be linked to human behavior, thought, and emotion. (Page 62)
In other words, outwardly observed human behaviors (or “surveillance” of human actions) can be linked to the recorded brain electrical activity. That is mind reading. If a person believes everything the government says, then such a person should apparently believe that “mind reading” is possible.
Now, a previous article elaborated on this subject: it is possible that the government is “conveying misleading or false information” about brain recording, “perturbation,” or manipulation. However, as this article describes, common experience with medical technology and science suggests that (at least partial) “mind reading” is at least possible. Partial, not complete, “mind control” is also likely possible.
It should also be mentioned that government documents on the BRAIN Initiative could be partially true and deliberately misleading; for example, such technologies which remotely affect the human brain (partial “mind control” or stimulation) could have been discovered as early as before World War II, which is apparently when the tinfoil hat stories began.
Thus, it has to be mentioned here that when the BRAIN Initiative documents say that “wide scale” “control [of] the activity of brain cells and circuits” is “not possible yet” (page 3), the government could be deliberately misleading. The quote is another example, though, of the U.S. government clearly saying that mind control (“control the activity of brain cells and circuits”) is at least partially possible.
(This subject should probably also include discussions about the spiritual realm, the soul, body-soul unity, and God’s involvement or the devil’s and fallen angels’ involvement in human thinking. Such a discussion cannot be provided here. However, the effects of mind-altering drugs and other chemicals, specifically how those chemicals are sinful and often lead to other sin, suggest that human beings, through the use of chemicals or technologies, can obviously affect other human beings’ brain activity. Mind-altering drugs can be used as human-induced “mind control”; “chemical restraints” are chemicals used to control human behavior, a lockdown of the brain, a chemical lockdown, is described in U.S. federal regulations. More specific mind control with chemicals and physical technologies like radio waves or sound waves is what is described in U.S. federal government documents on the BRAIN Initiative.
Also, it is clear that every human being should be regularly reminded that the thoughts that occur in their brain can have more than one cause. Their thoughts are not necessarily their own thoughts, and people should not feel bad about themselves as a result of thoughts, nor should people believe every thought to be true. Ignoring many thoughts and practicing being serene is protective. The Sacraments of the Catholic Church, specifically Reconciliation and the Most Holy Eucharist, and prayer, specifically the Most Holy Rosary and simply prayerfully, repetitively, and silently praying the Most Holy Name of Jesus, the Most Powerful Word There Is, are protection.
Requiring government to publicize methods, technologies, and employees of all government entities like the FBI and federal and local secret police, and making it illegal to use any technologies which affect or surveil the human brain or body is potential protection, though not a guarantee, in the worldly realm.)
Thus, U.S. federal government documents have discussed both brain manipulation (“mind control”) and “optimal decisions” of the brain. (Page 7 and 69) Is complete, or mostly complete, control of the human brain likely the intent of such people? One might refer to the history of the secret actions of the FBI and local police and conclude that yes, the FBI, some local police, and others would support complete control of human thinking, decisions, and behavior.
And there is more on the subject, but it cannot be mentioned here.
Appendices:
I. 42 U.S. Code § 247d–4 – Facilities and capacities of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) In general
(1) Findings
Congress finds that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has an essential role in defending against and combatting public health threats domestically and abroad and requires secure and modern facilities, and expanded, improved, and appropriately maintained capabilities related to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies, sufficient to enable such Centers to conduct this important mission.
(2) Facilities
(A) In general
The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may design, construct, and equip new facilities, renovate existing facilities (including laboratories, laboratory support buildings, scientific communication facilities, transshipment complexes, secured and isolated parking structures, office buildings, and other facilities and infrastructure), and upgrade security of such facilities, in order to better conduct the capacities described in section 247d–1 of this title, and for supporting public health activities.
(B) Multiyear contracting authority
For any project of designing, constructing, equipping, or renovating any facility under subparagraph (A), the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may enter into a single contract or related contracts that collectively include the full scope of the project, and the solicitation and contract shall contain the clause “availability of funds” found at section 52.232–18 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) Improving the capacities of the Centers for Disease Control and PreventionThe Secretary shall expand, improve, enhance, and appropriately maintain the capabilities of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention relating to preparedness for and responding effectively to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies. Activities that may be carried out under the preceding sentence include—
(A) expanding or enhancing the training of personnel;
(B) improving communications facilities and networks, including delivery of necessary information to rural areas;
(C) improving capabilities for public health surveillance and reporting activities, taking into account the integrated system or systems of public health alert communications and surveillance networks under subsection (b); and
(D) improving laboratory facilities related to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies, including increasing the security of such facilities.
(4) Study of resources for facilities and capacities
Not later than June 1, 2022, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study on Federal spending in fiscal years 2013 through 2018 for activities authorized under this subsection. Such study shall include a review and assessment of obligations and expenditures directly related to each activity under paragraphs (2) and (3), including a specific accounting of, and delineation between, obligations and expenditures incurred for the construction, renovation, equipping, and security upgrades of facilities and associated contracts under this subsection, and the obligations and expenditures incurred to establish and improve the situational awareness and biosurveillance network under subsection (b), and shall identify the agency or agencies incurring such obligations and expenditures.
(b) Establishment of systems of public health communications and surveillance networks
(1) In generalThe Secretary, directly or through awards of grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, shall provide for the establishment of an integrated system or systems of public health alert communications and surveillance networks between and among—
(A) Federal, State, and local public health officials;
(B) public and private health-related laboratories, hospitals, poison control centers, immunization information systems, and other health care facilities; and
(C) any other entities determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(2) Requirements
The Secretary shall develop a plan to, and ensure that networks under paragraph (1) allow for the timely sharing and discussion, in a secure manner and in a form readily usable for analytical approaches, of essential information concerning bioterrorism or another public health emergency, or recommended methods for responding to such an attack or emergency, allowing for coordination to maximize all-hazards medical and public health preparedness and response and to minimize duplication of effort.
(3) Standards
(A) In general
Not later than 1 year after June 24, 2019, the Secretary, in cooperation with health care providers, State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health officials, and relevant Federal agencies (including the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the National Institute of Standards and Technology), shall, as necessary, adopt technical and reporting standards, including standards for interoperability as defined by section 300jj of this title, for networks under paragraph (1) and update such standards as necessary. Such standards shall be made available on the internet website of the Department of Health and Human Services, in a manner that does not compromise national security.
(B) Deference to standards development organizations
In adopting and implementing standards under this subsection and subsection (c), the Secretary shall give deference to standards published by standards development organizations and voluntary consensus-based standards entities.
(c) Modernizing public health situational awareness and biosurveillance
(1) In general
The Secretary, in collaboration with State, local, and tribal public health officials, shall establish, and improve as applicable and appropriate, a near real-time electronic nationwide public health situational awareness capability through an interoperable network of systems to share data and information to enhance early detection of, rapid response to, and management of, potentially catastrophic infectious disease outbreaks, novel emerging threats, and other public health emergencies that originate domestically or abroad. Such network shall be built on existing State situational awareness systems or enhanced systems that enable such interoperability.
(2) Coordination and consultationIn establishing and improving the network under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—
(A) facilitate coordination among agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services that provide, or have the potential to provide, information and data to, and analyses for, the situational awareness and biosurveillance network under paragraph (1), including coordination among relevant agencies related to health care services, the facilitation of health information exchange (including the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology), and public health emergency preparedness and response; and
(B) consult with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce (and the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology), the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the heads of other Federal agencies, as the Secretary determines appropriate.
(3) Elements
(A) In generalThe network described in paragraph (1) shall include data and information transmitted in a standardized format from—
(i) State, local, and tribal public health entities, including public health laboratories;
(ii) Federal health agencies;
(iii) zoonotic disease monitoring systems;
(iv) public and private sector health care entities, hospitals, pharmacies, poison control centers or professional organizations in the field of poison control, immunization information systems, community health centers, health centers, clinical laboratories, and public environmental health agencies, to the extent practicable and provided that such data are voluntarily provided simultaneously to the Secretary and appropriate State, local, and tribal public health agencies; and
(v) such other sources as the Secretary may deem appropriate.
(B) Review
Not later than 2 years after June 24, 2019, and every 6 years thereafter, the Secretary shall conduct a review of the elements described in subparagraph (A). Such review shall include a discussion of the addition of any elements pursuant to clause (v), including elements added to advancing new technologies, and identify any challenges in the incorporation of elements under subparagraph (A). The Secretary shall provide such review to the congressional committees of jurisdiction.
(4) Rule of construction
Paragraph (3) shall not be construed as requiring separate reporting of data and information from each source listed.
(5) Required activities
(A) In generalIn establishing and operating the network described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—
(i) utilize applicable interoperability standards as adopted by the Secretary, and in consultation with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, through a joint public and private sector process;
(ii) define minimal data elements for such network;
(iii) in collaboration with State, local, and tribal public health officials, integrate and build upon existing State, local, and tribal capabilities, ensuring simultaneous sharing of data, information, and analyses from the network described in paragraph (1) with State, local, and tribal public health agencies;
(iv) in collaboration with State, local, and tribal public health officials, develop procedures and standards for the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data that States, regions, or other entities collect and report to the network described in paragraph (1); and
(v) pilot test standards and implementation specifications, consistent with the process described in section 300jj–12(b)(3)(C) of this title, which State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health entities may utilize, on a voluntary basis, as a part of the network.
(B) Public meeting
(i) In general
Not later than 180 days after June 24, 2019, the Secretary shall convene a public meeting for purposes of discussing and providing input on the potential goals, functions, and uses of the network described in paragraph (1) and incorporating the elements described in paragraph (3)(A).
(ii) Experts
The public meeting shall include representatives of relevant Federal agencies (including representatives from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the National Institute of Standards and Technology); State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health officials; stakeholders with expertise in biosurveillance and situational awareness; stakeholders with expertise in capabilities relevant to biosurveillance and situational awareness, such as experts in informatics and data analytics (including experts in prediction, modeling, or forecasting); and other representatives as the Secretary determines appropriate.
(iii) TopicsSuch public meeting shall include a discussion of—
(I) data elements, including minimal or essential data elements, that are voluntarily provided for such network, which may include elements from public health and public and private health care entities, to the extent practicable;
(II) standards and implementation specifications that may improve the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data during a public health emergency;
(III) strategies to encourage the access, exchange, and use of information;
(IV) considerations for State, local, Tribal, and territorial capabilities and infrastructure related to data exchange and interoperability;
(V) privacy and security protections provided at the Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial levels, and by nongovernmental stakeholders; and
(VI) opportunities for the incorporation of innovative technologies to improve the network.
(6) Strategy and implementation plan
(A) In generalNot later than 18 months after June 24, 2019, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional committees of jurisdiction a coordinated strategy and an accompanying implementation plan that—
(i) is informed by the public meeting under paragraph (5)(B);
(ii) includes a review and assessment of existing capabilities of the network and related infrastructure, including input provided by the public meeting under paragraph (5)(B);
(iii) identifies and demonstrates the measurable steps the Secretary will carry out to—
(I) develop, implement, and evaluate the network described in paragraph (1), utilizing elements described in paragraph (3)(A);
(II) modernize and enhance biosurveillance activities, including strategies to include innovative technologies and analytical approaches (including prediction and forecasting for pandemics and all-hazards) from public and private entities;
(III) improve information sharing, coordination, and communication among disparate biosurveillance systems supported by the Department of Health and Human Services, including the identification of methods to improve accountability, better utilize resources and workforce capabilities, and incorporate innovative technologies within and across agencies; and
(IV) test and evaluate capabilities of the interoperable network of systems to improve situational awareness and biosurveillance capabilities;
(iv) includes performance measures and the metrics by which performance measures will be assessed with respect to the measurable steps under clause (iii); and
(v) establishes dates by which each measurable step under clause (iii) will be implemented.
(B) Annual budget planNot later than 2 years after June 24, 2019, and on an annual basis thereafter, in accordance with the strategy and implementation plan under this paragraph, the Secretary shall, taking into account recommendations provided by the National Biodefense Science Board, develop a budget plan based on the strategy and implementation plan under this section. Such budget plan shall include—
(i) a summary of resources previously expended to establish, improve, and utilize the nationwide public health situational awareness and biosurveillance network under paragraph (1);
(ii) estimates of costs and resources needed to establish and improve the network under paragraph (1) according to the strategy and implementation plan under subparagraph (A);
(iii) the identification of gaps and inefficiencies in nationwide public health situational awareness and biosurveillance capabilities, resources, and authorities needed to address such gaps; and
(iv) a strategy to minimize and address such gaps and improve inefficiencies.
(7) Consultation with the National Biodefense Science BoardIn carrying out this section and consistent with section 247d–7g of this title, the National Biodefense Science Board shall provide expert advice and guidance, including recommendations, regarding the measurable steps the Secretary should take to modernize and enhance biosurveillance activities pursuant to the efforts of the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure comprehensive, real-time, all-hazards biosurveillance capabilities. In complying with the preceding sentence, the National Biodefense Science Board shall—
(A) identify the steps necessary to achieve a national biosurveillance system for human health (taking into account zoonotic disease, including gaps in scientific understanding of the interactions between human, animal, and environmental health), with international connectivity, where appropriate, that is predicated on State, regional, and community level capabilities and creates a networked system to allow for two-way information flow between and among Federal, State, and local government public health authorities and clinical health care providers;
(B) identify any duplicative surveillance programs and gaps in surveillance programs under the authority of the Secretary, or changes that are necessary to existing programs, in order to enhance and modernize such activities, minimize duplication, strengthen and streamline such activities under the authority of the Secretary, and achieve real-time and appropriate data that relate to disease activity, both human and zoonotic;
(C) coordinate with applicable existing advisory committees of the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including such advisory committees consisting of representatives from State, local, and tribal public health authorities and appropriate public and private sector health care entities, animal health organizations related to zoonotic disease, and academic institutions, in order to provide guidance on public health surveillance activities; and
(D) provide recommendations to the Secretary on policies and procedures to complete the steps described in this paragraph in a manner that is consistent with section 300hh–1 of this title.
(8) Situational awareness and biosurveillance as a national security priority
The Secretary, on a periodic basis as applicable and appropriate, shall meet with the Director of National Intelligence to inform the development and capabilities of the nationwide public health situational awareness and biosurveillance network.
(d) State and regional systems to enhance situational awareness in public health emergencies
(1) In general
To implement the network described in subsection (c), the Secretary may award grants to States or consortia of States to enhance the ability of such States or consortia of States to establish or operate a coordinated public health situational awareness system for regional or Statewide early detection of, rapid response to, and management of potentially catastrophic infectious disease outbreaks and public health emergencies, in collaboration with appropriate public health agencies, environmental health agencies, sentinel hospitals, clinical laboratories, pharmacies, poison control centers, immunization programs, other health care organizations, and animal health organizations within such States.
(2) EligibilityTo be eligible to receive a grant under paragraph (1), the State or consortium of States shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require, including an assurance that the State or consortium of States will submit to the Secretary—
(A) reports of such data, information, and metrics as the Secretary may require;
(B) a report on the effectiveness of the systems funded under the grant;
(C) a description of the manner in which grant funds will be used to enhance the timelines and comprehensiveness of efforts to detect, respond to, and manage potentially catastrophic infectious disease outbreaks and public health emergencies; and
(D) an implementation plan that may include measurable steps to achieve the purposes described in paragraph (1).
(3) Use of fundsA State or consortium of States that receives an award under this subsection—
(A) shall establish, enhance, or operate a coordinated public health situational awareness system for regional or Statewide early detection of, rapid response to, and management of potentially catastrophic infectious disease outbreaks and public health emergencies;
(B) may award grants or contracts to entities described in paragraph (1) within or serving such State to assist such entities in improving the operation of information technology systems, facilitating the secure exchange of data and information, and training personnel to enhance the operation of the system described in subparagraph (A); and
(C) may conduct a pilot program for the development of multi-State telehealth network test beds that build on, enhance, and securely link existing State and local telehealth programs to prepare for, monitor, respond to, and manage the events of public health emergencies, facilitate coordination and communication among medical, public health, and emergency response agencies, and provide medical services through telehealth initiatives within the States that are involved in such a multi-State telehealth network test bed.
(4) LimitationInformation technology systems acquired or implemented using grants awarded under this section must be compliant with—
(A) interoperability and other technological standards, as determined by the Secretary; and
(B) data collection and reporting requirements for the network described in subsection (c).
(5) Technical assistance
The Secretary may provide technical assistance to States, localities, Tribes, and territories or a consortium of States, localities, Tribes, and territories receiving an award under this subsection regarding interoperability and the technical standards set forth by the Secretary.
(e) Telehealth enhancements for emergency response
(1) EvaluationThe Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Communications Commission and other relevant Federal agencies, shall—
(A) conduct an inventory of telehealth initiatives in existence on December 19, 2006, including—
(i) the specific location of network components;
(ii) the medical, technological, and communications capabilities of such components;
(iii) the functionality of such components; and
(iv) the capacity and ability of such components to handle increased volume during the response to a public health emergency;
(B) identify methods to expand and interconnect the regional health information networks funded by the Secretary, the State and regional broadband networks funded through the rural health care support mechanism pilot program funded by the Federal Communications Commission, and other telehealth networks;
(C) evaluate ways to prepare for, monitor, respond rapidly to, or manage the events of, a public health emergency through the enhanced use of telehealth technologies, including mechanisms for payment or reimbursement for use of such technologies and personnel during public health emergencies;
(D) identify methods for reducing legal barriers that deter health care professionals from providing telemedicine services, such as by utilizing State emergency health care professional credentialing verification systems, encouraging States to establish and implement mechanisms to improve interstate medical licensure cooperation, facilitating the exchange of information among States regarding investigations and adverse actions, and encouraging States to waive the application of licensing requirements during a public health emergency;
(E) evaluate ways to integrate the practice of telemedicine within the National Disaster Medical System; and
(F) promote greater coordination among existing Federal interagency telemedicine and health information technology initiatives.
(2) Report
Not later than 12 months after December 19, 2006, the Secretary shall prepare and submit a report to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives regarding the findings and recommendations pursuant to subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1).
(f) Personnel authorities
(1) Specially qualified personnelIn addition to any other personnel authorities, to carry out subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary may—
(A) appoint highly qualified individuals to scientific or professional positions at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, not to exceed 30 such employees at any time (specific to positions authorized by this subsection), with expertise in capabilities relevant to biosurveillance and situational awareness, such as experts in informatics and data analytics (including experts in prediction, modeling, or forecasting), and other related scientific or technical fields; and
(B) compensate individuals appointed under subparagraph (A) in the same manner and subject to the same terms and conditions in which individuals appointed under 9903 [1] of title 5 are compensated, without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
(2) Limitations
The Secretary shall exercise the authority under paragraph (1) in a manner that is consistent with the limitations described in section 247d–6a(e)(2) of this title.
(g) Timeline
The Secretary shall accomplish the purposes under subsections (b) and (c) no later than September 30, 2023, and shall provide a justification to the congressional committees of jurisdiction for any missed or delayed implementation of measurable steps identified under subsection (c)(6)(A)(iii).
(h) Independent evaluation
Not later than 3 years after June 24, 2019, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an independent evaluation and submit to the Secretary and the congressional committees of jurisdiction a report concerning the activities conducted under subsections (b) and (c), and provide recommendations, as applicable and appropriate, on necessary improvements to the biosurveillance and situational awareness network.
(i) Authorization of appropriations
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, $161,800,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023.
(j) Definition
For purposes of this section the term “biosurveillance” means the process of gathering near real-time biological data that relates to human and zoonotic disease activity and threats to human or animal health, in order to achieve early warning and identification of such health threats, early detection and prompt ongoing tracking of health events, and overall situational awareness of disease activity.
(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, § 319D, as added Pub. L. 106–505, title I, § 102, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2318; amended Pub. L. 107–188, title I, § 103, June 12, 2002, 116 Stat. 603; Pub. L. 109–417, title II, §§ 202, 204(b)(2), Dec. 19, 2006, 120 Stat. 2845, 2851; Pub. L. 113–5, title II, § 204(a), Mar. 13, 2013, 127 Stat. 177; Pub. L. 116–22, title II, § 205(a), (b), June 24, 2019, 133 Stat. 918, 924.)
II. 42 U.S. Code § 280g–7a – Surveillance of neurological diseases
U.S. Code
(a) In general
The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and in coordination with other agencies as the Secretary determines, shall, as appropriate—
(1) enhance and expand infrastructure and activities to track the epidemiology of neurological diseases; and
(2) incorporate information obtained through such activities into an integrated surveillance system, which may consist of or include a registry, to be known as the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System.
(b) Research
The Secretary shall ensure that the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System is designed in a manner that facilitates further research on neurological diseases.
(c) ContentIn carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary—
(1) shall provide for the collection and storage of information on the incidence and prevalence of neurological diseases in the United States;
(2) to the extent practicable, shall provide for the collection and storage of other available information on neurological diseases, including information related to persons living with neurological diseases who choose to participate, such as—
(A) demographics, such as age, race, ethnicity, sex, geographic location, family history, and other information, as appropriate;
(B) risk factors that may be associated with neurological diseases, such as genetic and environmental risk factors and other information, as appropriate; and
(C) diagnosis and progression markers;
(3) may provide for the collection and storage of information relevant to analysis on neurological diseases, such as information concerning—
(A) the natural history of the diseases;
(B) the prevention of the diseases;
(C) the detection, management, and treatment approaches for the diseases; and
(D) the development of outcomes measures;
(4) may address issues identified during the consultation process under subsection (d); and
(5) initially may address a limited number of neurological diseases.
(d) ConsultationIn carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consult with individuals with appropriate expertise, which may include—
(1) epidemiologists with experience in disease surveillance or registries;
(2) representatives of national voluntary health associations that—
(A) focus on neurological diseases; and
(B) have demonstrated experience in research, care, or patient services;
(3) health information technology experts or other information management specialists;
(4) clinicians with expertise in neurological diseases; and
(5) research scientists with experience conducting translational research or utilizing surveillance systems for scientific research purposes.
(e) Grants
The Secretary may award grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, public or private nonprofit entities to carry out activities under this section.
(f) Coordination with other Federal, State, and local agenciesSubject to subsection (h), the Secretary shall—
(1) make information and analysis in the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System available, as appropriate—
(A) to Federal departments and agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
(B) to State and local agencies; and
(2) identify, build upon, leverage, and coordinate among existing data and surveillance systems, surveys, registries, and other Federal public health infrastructure, wherever practicable.
(g) Public access
Subject to subsection (h), the Secretary shall ensure that information and analysis in the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System are available, as appropriate, to the public, including researchers.
(h) Privacy
The Secretary shall ensure that information and analysis in the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System are made available only to the extent permitted by applicable Federal and State law, and in a manner that protects personal privacy, to the extent required by applicable Federal and State privacy law, at a minimum.
(i) Reports
(1) Report on information and analyses
Not later than 1 year after the date on which any system is established under this section, the Secretary shall submit an interim report to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives regarding aggregate information collected pursuant to this section and epidemiological analyses, as appropriate. Such report shall be posted on the Internet website of the Department of Health and Human Services and shall be updated biennially.
(2) Implementation reportNot later than 4 years after December 13, 2016, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress concerning the implementation of this section. Such report shall include information on—
(A) the development and maintenance of the National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System;
(B) the type of information collected and stored in the surveillance system;
(C) the use and availability of such information, including guidelines for such use; and
(D) the use and coordination of databases that collect or maintain information on neurological diseases.
(j) Definition
In this section, the term “national voluntary health association” means a national nonprofit organization with chapters, other affiliated organizations, or networks in States throughout the United States with experience serving the population of individuals with neurological disease and have demonstrated experience in neurological disease research, care, and patient services.
(k) Authorization of appropriations
To carry out this section, there is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022.
(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, § 399S–1, as added Pub. L. 114–255, div. A, title II, § 2061, Dec. 13, 2016, 130 Stat. 1076.)
This Post Has 0 Comments