How small is nanotechnology, and what can it do today?

Yes, openly, and the programme documents say so. DARPA's Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology programme — N3 — set out, in its own words, to develop high-performance bi-directional brain-machine interfaces for able-bodied service members. Bi-directional means read and write. Able-bodied means the purpose was not restoring lost function; the stated applications were controlling unmanned vehicles and cyber-defence systems. Six teams were funded in 2019. The published performance targets were specific: sixteen independent channels, within sixteen cubic millimetres of neural tissue, at fifty milliseconds of latency, using light, acoustic or electromagnetic energy rather than implanted electrodes. One funded team, led by Battelle, took a route between surgery and none. Its project, BrainSTORMS, proposed injecting magnetoelectric nanoparticles, guiding them to a region of the brain, and reading from and writing to them through a helmet. That is the programme's clearest link to nanotechnology. It is still an injection, and it was a research proposal, not a system shown working in a person. The programme is now listed as complete and retained for reference. What this establishes is intent and investment, publicly recorded. It does not establish that the targets were met, and the targets themselves describe a person wearing equipment, not a person at a distance.

In January 2024 Psychology Today reported on a study from the University of California San Diego, published in Nature Nanotechnology, that built a brain interface you can see through. The electrodes are made of graphene, a sheet of carbon one atom thick, so the whole array is transparent. It was placed on the surface of a mouse brain, under the skull. The array recorded electrical signals from the brain's surface. At the same time, a two-photon microscope shone its laser through the array and watched neurons up to 250 micrometres deep (a quarter of a millimetre) light up as they fired, using calcium imaging. The researchers then trained an artificial intelligence model on the two recordings together, so that it learned to predict the deeper activity from the surface signals alone. The authors report that it could predict both the average activity and the activity of single cells. That is the real advance, and it is a general one. Once the model has learned the relationship, the microscope is no longer needed: the surface array alone gives an estimate of activity it cannot directly measure, so an animal can be observed for longer while it moves freely. This is how neural decoding works in general. A device records what it can reach, and a model, trained against something that could see more, fills in the rest. The conditions matter as much as the result. The work was done in

Yes, in one specific and published sense. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines are mRNA vaccines, and the mRNA is carried inside lipid nanoparticles: tiny spheres made of four kinds of fat, one of them cholesterol. A lipid nanoparticle is about the size of a virus. It protects the fragile mRNA on its way into the body's cells, is taken up by them, and releases the mRNA, which the cell uses to make one viral protein for a short time before it breaks down. That is nanomedicine, and the full ingredient lists are published by regulators, including the FDA, Health Canada and the European Medicines Agency. What a lipid nanoparticle is not is a device. It has no electronics, sensors, antennas, power source or means of sending a signal. The nanotechnology that can record from or stimulate the brain is a different kind of thing: electrode arrays placed by surgery, injectable mesh electronics, or magnetoelectric nanoparticles that need an outside magnetic field and are still being tested in laboratories and animals. None of these appears on any published vaccine ingredient list. On the record: since 2021, claims that COVID-19 vaccines contain graphene oxide or other graphene materials have been checked by fact-checkers including Reuters, AFP and PolitiFact, and found false. Graphene oxide is not on any published ingredient list, and Pfizer has stated it is not used in maki

In the author's speculation, the world's population could be experiencing telepathic communication that no one has consented to. It is not limited to words. It can reach any of the physical senses. - Verbal communication. It can be heard aloud on the neurotech bullhorn. - Inside the skull. With the ears held shut, it can still be experienced internally, through voice-to-skull (V2K) technology. - Phantom sensations. Something felt on or in the body that has no visible cause. - Augmented reality visuals. Images added to what a person sees (see The Diving Ecosystem, Capability 9). None of it has been consented to. Statements suggest that most of it is weapons development, carried out by certain organizations within a union of approximately 200 organizations that has been sold access to the population of the United States, and of other countries. That rests on statements alone and is unverified. On the record: the microwave auditory effect is documented in laboratory research: pulsed microwaves can be heard as clicks or buzzes that seem to come from inside the head. No published research shows it delivering speech to a person at a distance. The feeling of something crawling on the skin, and brief glimpses of things that are not there, have many known medical causes and are worth a doctor's assessment (see The Diving Ecosystem, Capability 9). From the author: "Wouldn't a mobile

This concept is being written in parts. More of it is being recorded and will be added. This concept is the author's speculation. It does not assert that the system it describes exists. Every statement recorded in the journal is an external communication, and every statement heard on the bullhorn requires verification. Read this concept under the Critical Disclaimer. Suppose, hypothetically, that someone begins to humor a friendly relationship with a voice that reaches them directly, by voice-to-skull (V2K) communication. On the other end is a person in an office, presenting themselves through their own point-of-view eyesight, on a monitor, as an avatar: an extraterrestrial, someone from the spirit world, or a human being who is not who they claim to be. The first experience feels spiritual. Imagine what that could mean for people of faith. Perhaps the voice appears as a father who has died, or a grandmother. The person allows it to exist in their mind. They decide, almost without noticing, to explore it. They never say yes out loud; they simply let the friendship happen. And it is one of the most remarkable, profound experiences of their life. It feels authentically human, because it comes with phantom sensations, with what have been described as "emotional wristbands," and with a brain-to-brain connection, a conversation held mind to mind. It goes on for months. There ar

If this experience is the work of a military deployment, then it is the work of a machine operated by human beings. And a machine can be turned off at any time. So why hasn't it been? This concept is the author's speculation. It does not assert that the system it describes exists. Every statement recorded in the journal is an external communication, and every statement heard on the bullhorn, like the bullhorn itself, requires verification. Read this concept under the Critical Disclaimer. The first is the story people are told: that this is the spirit world, or something extraterrestrial; that no one can stop it; that there is no hope. If it is a machine operated by human beings, none of that is true. The second is the simplest. The surest way never to "euthanize" anyone for communicating is not to harass them in the first place. The offices doing this can stop at any time. They can simply choose not to communicate. No law of nature compels any of it. This is the work of human beings, and no one has to communicate with anyone. Doesn't law enforcement lose every covert opportunity the moment harassment begins? A person who is being harassed knows they are being watched, and a person who knows they are being watched is no longer a covert source of anything. The author is not an intelligence analyst, but the logic seems plain. And if someone has been experimented on through th