Skip to content

Appendix 178: Obama-Biden Administration Legalized Neurological Surveillance After Trump’s Election

Obama-Biden Administration Legalized Neurological Surveillance After Trump’s Election

In the Obama-Biden administration in 2013, after Trump’s election, the US government legalised “neurological surveillance.”

Obama-Biden Administration Legalized ‘Neurological Surveillance’ After Trump’s Election 1

In numerous earlier publications, it was stated how U.S. federal government regulations on “biosurveillance” raise the potential that the government is trying to “real-time” “mind read” and “mind control.”

It is important to stress that if the U.S. or other governments planned on developing technologies for “brain” or “neurological” surveillance and/or control, they would likely employ the most extensive propaganda strategies to convince everyone that it is absurd to think “mind reading” or “mind control” are even remotely possible, let alone something a government could do covertly and from an unidentified location.

Additionally, if neuroscientists were planning to create “mind reading” or brain recording technologies that could be used for surveillance, they most likely would want to ensure that they were covered by U.S. federal law. Other federal legislation in the United States (in addition to “biosurveillance” statutes) may indicate that the government wanted to create and employ “neurological surveillance” or “brain surveillance” technologies.

In 2016, a bill establishing a new “neurological surveillance system” was passed.

But first, it’s important to explain a distinct federal law on biosurveillance that was passed in the United States in 2013. The National Biodefense Science Board and the Secretary of Health and Human Services were obliged by a statute passed by the Obama-Biden administration in 2013 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 duplicationstrengthen 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)

Achieving “real-time and suitable data that relate to disease activity, both human and zoonotic,” according to the regulation, was a need for surveillance systems. The need for the “biosurveillance” network or networks to “obtain real-time… data” for human diseases must be emphasised. “Real-time data” denotes information gleaned by “monitoring” of human conditions at all times, ostensibly even before a doctor or other professional has made a diagnosis.

Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the term “surveillance” simply refers to “tracking the number of diagnosed instances” of a disease.

The National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System was then made legal by the United States federal government in 2016. The human brain is included in the category of “neurological problems.” The following is a partial description of the 2016 law:


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)

Another point is that the law mentioned above, which permits the CDC to monitor “neurological conditions” “in coordination with other agencies” and ostensibly “in real-time,” is likely more specific than it would be if the U.S. federal government had used the more generic terms “mind reading” or “mind control.” The physical and chemical “state” of the human brain is surely what the “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” refers to in “real-time.” Additionally, as it is a “national… system,” it applies to all of America.

Thus, if scientists or anyone working for the U.S. government wanted to authorise brain surveillance and brain control while staying somewhat hidden, they might use wording similar to those in the statute above.

FBI has used most complete surveillance imaginable on Americans, extensive propaganda

The FBI, local police, local and federal secret police, and other U.S. government entities use widespread monitoring, secret stalking, secret intimidation, secret causing harm, and other secret acts. More information from prior articles is necessary here.

In a different article (pdf below), the “extensive” propaganda and other deception utilised by the federal government of the United States to deceive millions of people over a long period of time was described.

Thus, it is possible for U.S. government representatives or representatives of other nations to deceive Americans via years of propaganda into believing it is absurd to believe that mind control or mind reading may be possible.

Furthermore, it must be repeatedly emphasised that the FBI and local police in some areas of the United States conducted what has been called the most thorough surveillance operations on Americans with the apparent goal of “destroying” the targeted individuals and groups. Page 6 and Page 31 This implies that the FBI and some local law enforcement agencies have a history of utilising surveillance as a weapon, and if brain surveillance is conceivable, such organisations may employ it.

Gov’t discussions of brain ‘recording’ and brain activity ‘control’ mean ‘mind reading’ and ‘mind control’

The idea that remote technologies that use radio waves, electromagnetic waves, x-rays, and other technologies, including ones the government probably isn’t telling Americans about, could be created to be used remotely and covertly to torture and monitor the human brain seems to not be all that outlandish.

In fact, it is so plausible that even the American federal government seems to believe that it is possible to “read minds.” Of course, it’s not “mind reading,” according to the U.S. government. It is described in several ways, such as 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 the worldly sphere, potential protection, though not a guarantee, comes from requiring government to disclose methods, technologies, and personnel of all government entities, such as the FBI and federal and local secret police, and from making it illegal to use any technologies which affect or monitor the human brain or body.)

Thus, both brain modification (sometimes referred to as “mind control”) and “optimal decisions” of the brain have been considered in U.S. federal government documents. Page 7 and page 69 Is it likely that these individuals want to fully or largely control the human brain? According to the history of the FBI’s and local police’s covert operations, the FBI, certain local police, and others would advocate total control over people’s thoughts, acts, and conduct.

This Post Has 0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top