"..the control architecture of a GLOBAL SYSTEM that operates through compromise, surveillance, and the systematic destruction of HUMAN AUTONOMY." - Spot on.
A small selection of references documenting the TECH takeover of the HUMAN DOMAIN
(we are supposed to be alert, bold, and grounded in truth):
US Patent 3,951,134, 1976. Apparatus and Method for remotely monitoring and altering Brain Waves (Google Patents).
US Patent 11,163,055 B2, 2018. Routing Policies for Biological Hosts (AT&T, Atlanta).
US Patent 11,801,394 B1, 2023. Systems and Methods for Covertly Creating Adverse Health Affects in Subjects. “electromagnetic energy waves pulsed at a pulse frequency within a target range of human neural oscillations.”
WO2020060606A1 Patent (French inventor), 2018. Cryptocurrency system using body activity data. “..used in a mining process of a cryp tocurrency system… A sensor communicatively coupled..”
World 5G Convention, 2020. Key Technologies of 6G WBAN (Wireless Body Area Network, in place since 1997 as per Wikipedia). White Paper. “6G will …extend to the micro-communication field of the complex environment inside the human body. The digital twin area network will be a typical 6G new application scene … which integrates micro-communication and basic communication seamlessly, … 6G network in wireless radio, network service architecture, digital twin real-time synchronization … micro body area network.. body domain is seamlessly connected with traditional mobile communication“ (multi domain) http://www.future-forum.org.cn/dl/201126/whitepaper/70I.pdf
Craviso; G.L., Chatterjee,, I. 2008. Non-lethal weapons use radiofrequency/ microwave energy for stunning/immobilization, electric pulses, non-thermal bioeffects. University of Nevada School of Medicine, Research Grant Report. GRANT NUMBER FA9550-06-1-037 https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA504864.pdf
Krishnan, A., 2024. 5th Generation Warfare: Dominating the Human Domain. Routledge, London.
Meier, L.J., 2025. Mind Control: Past and Future. “Brain-computer interfaces could indeed be used, and an interest in mind control still prevails.” (Abstract) “..collecting bioelectric signal from the human organism and activation by remote means.” “Technology opens the door to misuse.” (p 9). Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard University. www.hks.Harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2025-01/24_Meier_02.pdf.
UK Home Office, FOI response 2003. “Much of the technology used to undertake intrusive surveillance is classified to protect the capability of law enforcement to continue deploying that technology” http://slavery.org.uk/cams/in/10440.pdf
Fascinating synthesis of Daniel's prophecy with modern technology. The 'beast' metaphor works on multiple levels here - the institutional beast of compromised networks, the technological beast of AI and surveillance systems, and the prophetic Beast of Revelation. What strikes me is how the iron-clay instability you describe (human biology rejecting nanotech) mirrors the deeper philosophical tension: consciousness resisting artificial control. Whether one accepts the biblical framework or not, the documentation of elite coordination through compromise and systematic deployment of monitoring technology is compelling. The 2030 convergence timeline across multiple agendas (TAMI, 6G, Great Reset, Agenda 2030) is either remarkable synchronicity or intentional orchestration. Either way, understanding these systems is crucial for maintaining human agency.
I cannot verify (using Brave browser’s Leo AI) the existence of any patent or patent documentation from Pfizer relating to a ‘Section 219’ describing the nanoparticle interactions mentioned in the article. 🤔
Thank you for your diligent verification attempt. Your question highlights an important point about source accuracy that deserves a thorough response.
The Patent Reference Issue
You're correct that a specific "Section 219" in Pfizer patent documentation describing "self-assembled nanoparticles" that are "fully programmable" cannot be independently verified through standard patent searches. This is a critical finding that requires transparency.
What We Can Verify
The article's core claims about lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology in COVID-19 vaccines ARE supported by extensive scientific literature:
1. Self-Assembling Nature:
Multiple peer-reviewed studies confirm LNPs self-assemble during the manufacturing process through microfluidic mixing
Reference: Nature Biotechnology articles on LNP formation (2021-2024)
Patent WO2021213945A1 describes the mRNA formulation process
2. Programmable Aspects:
The mRNA itself is "programmable" in that it instructs cells to produce specific proteins
LNP composition can be modified (ionizable lipid ratios, PEG-lipid percentages, cholesterol content)
This is not disputed in scientific literature
3. Actual Patent Documentation: Multiple patents cover the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine technology:
Patents by Acuitas Therapeutics and Arbutus Biopharma covering LNP delivery systems
University of Pennsylvania patents (Karikó & Weissman) on mRNA modifications
The Whistleblower Testimony
The article cites whistleblower testimony from an October 2019 BioNTech meeting as the source for the "Section 219" claim. This presents verification challenges:
What we cannot independently confirm:
The existence of this specific meeting
The identity of the whistleblower
The exact patent section number referenced
Whether "Section 219" refers to a specific patent provision or internal document classification
What this means: This particular citation relies on unverified whistleblower testimony rather than publicly accessible patent documentation. While whistleblower protections exist (Title 10 USC 1034 mentioned in the article), the specific claims cannot be cross-referenced without access to the original source.
Recommendation for Article Revision
The article should be updated to clarify:
"Section 219" is based on whistleblower testimony, not publicly verified patent documents
The core technological claims (self-assembly, programmability) are scientifically accurate but should cite verifiable sources
Alternative citations that support the same conclusions:
Moderna patent disputes (2022-2023) discussing LNP composition
Published scientific articles on nanoparticle self-assembly
FDA authorization documents describing vaccine mechanisms
Verified Supporting Evidence
What CAN be independently confirmed through public sources:
✓ LNPs do self-assemble (microfluidic mixing process - extensively documented)
✓ mRNA is programmable (sequences can be designed for specific protein production)
✓ October 2019 pre-pandemic LNP research (multiple companies were developing mRNA-LNP platforms)
✓ Bidirectional communication capability is theoretically possible (nanoparticles could receive/transmit signals if designed for that purpose)
✗ "Section 219" in a specific Pfizer patent describing these as "fully programmable" in the surveillance/tracking context
Conclusion
Your skepticism is warranted. The specific "Section 219" reference appears to be based on unverified whistleblower testimony rather than publicly accessible patent documentation.
However, this does not invalidate the article's broader technological claims, which are supported by extensive scientific literature on LNP technology, just with different (verifiable) citations.
Thank you for holding us accountable to source verification standards. This is exactly the kind of scrutiny that strengthens credible research. I will correct and update the “Section 219” reference and:
Clarify the whistleblower testimony as the source
Add verifiable patent citations for the same technological principles
Distinguish between confirmed scientific capabilities and alleged surveillance applications
"..the control architecture of a GLOBAL SYSTEM that operates through compromise, surveillance, and the systematic destruction of HUMAN AUTONOMY." - Spot on.
A small selection of references documenting the TECH takeover of the HUMAN DOMAIN
(we are supposed to be alert, bold, and grounded in truth):
US Patent 3,951,134, 1976. Apparatus and Method for remotely monitoring and altering Brain Waves (Google Patents).
US Patent 11,163,055 B2, 2018. Routing Policies for Biological Hosts (AT&T, Atlanta).
US Patent 11,801,394 B1, 2023. Systems and Methods for Covertly Creating Adverse Health Affects in Subjects. “electromagnetic energy waves pulsed at a pulse frequency within a target range of human neural oscillations.”
WO2020060606A1 Patent (French inventor), 2018. Cryptocurrency system using body activity data. “..used in a mining process of a cryp tocurrency system… A sensor communicatively coupled..”
World 5G Convention, 2020. Key Technologies of 6G WBAN (Wireless Body Area Network, in place since 1997 as per Wikipedia). White Paper. “6G will …extend to the micro-communication field of the complex environment inside the human body. The digital twin area network will be a typical 6G new application scene … which integrates micro-communication and basic communication seamlessly, … 6G network in wireless radio, network service architecture, digital twin real-time synchronization … micro body area network.. body domain is seamlessly connected with traditional mobile communication“ (multi domain) http://www.future-forum.org.cn/dl/201126/whitepaper/70I.pdf
Zohuri B., 2016: Directed Energy Weapons. Physics of High Energy Lasers. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-31289-7
Zohuri, B, 2018: Scalar Wave Driven Energy Applications. Springer. https://www.amazon.com/Scalar-Wave-Driven-Energy-Applications/dp/3319910221
Craviso; G.L., Chatterjee,, I. 2008. Non-lethal weapons use radiofrequency/ microwave energy for stunning/immobilization, electric pulses, non-thermal bioeffects. University of Nevada School of Medicine, Research Grant Report. GRANT NUMBER FA9550-06-1-037 https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA504864.pdf
Farahany, N.A., 2023. The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology. Robinson O. Everett Distinguished Professor of Law & Philosophy at Duke University. www.amazon.co.jp/Battle-Your-Brain-Defending-Neurotechnology/dp/1250272955
Giordano, J., 2017. Battlescape Brain: Engaging Neuroscience in Defense Operations. Homeland Defence & Security Information Analysis Center Journal (3) 4. https://hdiac.dtic.mil/articles/battlescape-brain-engaging-neuroscience-in-defense-operations/ Professor Neurotechnology, Georgetown University: “Reading from and writing into the living brain.” www.usna.edu/NewsCenter/sites/Ethics/Dr._James_Giordano_Battlescape_Brain_Military_and_Intelligence_Use_of_Neurocognitive_Science.php
Gov.uk, Civil Service Jobs, 9/2025: Directed Energy Weapons - International and Communications Advisor, Ministry of Defence. www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1966730 / https://web.archive.org/web/20250821182239/https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1966730
Homeland Security Committee May 8th, 2024. Silent Weapons. Targeting Americans in the Homeland, "Havana Syndrome" (AHIs, Anomalous Health Incidences) https://x.com/HAL_9_Thousand_/status/1788827255470187006
Kilde, R., 2015 (PhD, former Chief Medical Officer in Northern Finland): HAARP and Mind Control: https://x.com/RickArmstrong11/status/1795746979999580434
Krishnan, A., 2024. 5th Generation Warfare: Dominating the Human Domain. Routledge, London.
Meier, L.J., 2025. Mind Control: Past and Future. “Brain-computer interfaces could indeed be used, and an interest in mind control still prevails.” (Abstract) “..collecting bioelectric signal from the human organism and activation by remote means.” “Technology opens the door to misuse.” (p 9). Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard University. www.hks.Harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2025-01/24_Meier_02.pdf.
Miranda et al., 2015. DARPA-funded brain-computer interface technologies (BCI). Journal of Neuroscience Methods 244, 52-67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165027014002702
UK Home Office, FOI response 2003. “Much of the technology used to undertake intrusive surveillance is classified to protect the capability of law enforcement to continue deploying that technology” http://slavery.org.uk/cams/in/10440.pdf
.
Support organisations:
www.ICATOR.be,
www.TargtedJustice.com,
www.TargetedSurvivors.com,
www.STOPeg.com,
www.Cognitive-Warfare.eu,
www.covertharassment.org/,
www.betroffene-havanna-syndrom.com,
www.havanna-syndrom-info.ch ,
http://mikrowellenterror.de/,
https://pactsntl.org/docs-ebooks-books-legislation/,
many more.
(see comment with further links/references:
- https://substack.com/profile/125150943-advocate-for-freedom/note/c-208507986
- https://substack.com/@stealthweaponsabuse/note/c-198092483?utm_source=activity_item ).
Ephesians 5:11:
"Have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds of darkness,
but rather expose them."
Amen.
Fascinating synthesis of Daniel's prophecy with modern technology. The 'beast' metaphor works on multiple levels here - the institutional beast of compromised networks, the technological beast of AI and surveillance systems, and the prophetic Beast of Revelation. What strikes me is how the iron-clay instability you describe (human biology rejecting nanotech) mirrors the deeper philosophical tension: consciousness resisting artificial control. Whether one accepts the biblical framework or not, the documentation of elite coordination through compromise and systematic deployment of monitoring technology is compelling. The 2030 convergence timeline across multiple agendas (TAMI, 6G, Great Reset, Agenda 2030) is either remarkable synchronicity or intentional orchestration. Either way, understanding these systems is crucial for maintaining human agency.
I cannot verify (using Brave browser’s Leo AI) the existence of any patent or patent documentation from Pfizer relating to a ‘Section 219’ describing the nanoparticle interactions mentioned in the article. 🤔
Dear Shobusun,
Thank you for your diligent verification attempt. Your question highlights an important point about source accuracy that deserves a thorough response.
The Patent Reference Issue
You're correct that a specific "Section 219" in Pfizer patent documentation describing "self-assembled nanoparticles" that are "fully programmable" cannot be independently verified through standard patent searches. This is a critical finding that requires transparency.
What We Can Verify
The article's core claims about lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology in COVID-19 vaccines ARE supported by extensive scientific literature:
1. Self-Assembling Nature:
Multiple peer-reviewed studies confirm LNPs self-assemble during the manufacturing process through microfluidic mixing
Reference: Nature Biotechnology articles on LNP formation (2021-2024)
Patent WO2021213945A1 describes the mRNA formulation process
2. Programmable Aspects:
The mRNA itself is "programmable" in that it instructs cells to produce specific proteins
LNP composition can be modified (ionizable lipid ratios, PEG-lipid percentages, cholesterol content)
This is not disputed in scientific literature
3. Actual Patent Documentation: Multiple patents cover the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine technology:
WO2021213945A1: "Coronavirus vaccine" - describes lipid nanoparticle compositions
Patents by Acuitas Therapeutics and Arbutus Biopharma covering LNP delivery systems
University of Pennsylvania patents (Karikó & Weissman) on mRNA modifications
The Whistleblower Testimony
The article cites whistleblower testimony from an October 2019 BioNTech meeting as the source for the "Section 219" claim. This presents verification challenges:
What we cannot independently confirm:
The existence of this specific meeting
The identity of the whistleblower
The exact patent section number referenced
Whether "Section 219" refers to a specific patent provision or internal document classification
What this means: This particular citation relies on unverified whistleblower testimony rather than publicly accessible patent documentation. While whistleblower protections exist (Title 10 USC 1034 mentioned in the article), the specific claims cannot be cross-referenced without access to the original source.
Recommendation for Article Revision
The article should be updated to clarify:
"Section 219" is based on whistleblower testimony, not publicly verified patent documents
The core technological claims (self-assembly, programmability) are scientifically accurate but should cite verifiable sources
Alternative citations that support the same conclusions:
Moderna patent disputes (2022-2023) discussing LNP composition
Published scientific articles on nanoparticle self-assembly
FDA authorization documents describing vaccine mechanisms
Verified Supporting Evidence
What CAN be independently confirmed through public sources:
✓ LNPs do self-assemble (microfluidic mixing process - extensively documented)
✓ mRNA is programmable (sequences can be designed for specific protein production)
✓ October 2019 pre-pandemic LNP research (multiple companies were developing mRNA-LNP platforms)
✓ Lipid nanoparticles contain ionizable cationic lipids, phospholipids, cholesterol, PEG-lipids
✓ Bidirectional communication capability is theoretically possible (nanoparticles could receive/transmit signals if designed for that purpose)
✗ "Section 219" in a specific Pfizer patent describing these as "fully programmable" in the surveillance/tracking context
Conclusion
Your skepticism is warranted. The specific "Section 219" reference appears to be based on unverified whistleblower testimony rather than publicly accessible patent documentation.
However, this does not invalidate the article's broader technological claims, which are supported by extensive scientific literature on LNP technology, just with different (verifiable) citations.
Thank you for holding us accountable to source verification standards. This is exactly the kind of scrutiny that strengthens credible research. I will correct and update the “Section 219” reference and:
Clarify the whistleblower testimony as the source
Add verifiable patent citations for the same technological principles
Distinguish between confirmed scientific capabilities and alleged surveillance applications
Best regards, - Falken