Category Archives: Nanotechnology

Reason for everything, BioAPI and Chemtrails Pt. 2 – Physical Nano-Fiber/BioAPI Examples

Now we add another chapter to this important serie of documents. If you want proof you got it…

Physical Nano-Fiber/BioAPI Examples

This web sites not bother with the scientific details or patents behind the actual nano-tech. I, like yourself I’m sure are not a nano-tech engineer. If you want details you can read for the next ten years if you want. Patents are easily found for all of this. They want and need you to focus on the super technical nonsense, look past it; the closer you look, the less you will see.

To summarize from the FAQ page – chemtrails spray the entire planet with nano-fibers which you breathe in. These fibers contain (nano) components which construct and install nano-implants which the aggregate of constitutes what is commonly known as a Biological Application Programming Interface allowing for complete monitoring & control of all body and mind functions in a given host (you, and everyone on the entire plant). Below are the basics, which is all that’s required for a broader understanding of these nano-fibers. The first few examples show an actual payload within a fiber (which would be used in the installation of a nano-implant for example). The colored fibers are just examples of what else can be seen, and the last example is a petri dish of nano-fibers from an average person such as yourself. The fiber images are about 200x magnification, any standard microscope will let you see these fibers. You can view these fibers yourself right now if you want. They are all around you, you are even breathing them in as you read this. Some fibers move on their own, they sort of wiggle, yet have no organelles proving they are not organic or biological in nature.

All of these fibers are in your body and brain. All fibers and constructs are viewable with the naked eye (just barely) under a proper wavelength of blacklight. For more information on the nano-fibers and how to extract them from your body refer to the bottom of this page for nano-fiber extraction details.

For an impressive prologue to this you can refer to the Gamer (2009) clip in which you are told exactly what they are doing and demonstrates it for all to see. I like the Technotise: Edit & I (2009) clip too.

Nano-fibers are now directly shown and referenced in clips for Doomsday Book (2012) and Vexille (2007). Chemtrails as the source of mind control is shown in Ultrasonic (2012) and The Crazies (2010).

Also see The Host (2013), where they outright show you a pretty good representation of the nano-fibers. See the last sample of nano-fiber images below for the picture of this in real life.

This is the most amazing picture you’ll see in your life. This is a phase 2 subject with a nano-camera in the left eye. Only viewable with the proper wavelength of blacklight. Everyone on the planet has a basic set of nano-implants that allows them to be tracked and mind controlled on demand; people who contract what I call a phase 2 will have additional implants that allows them to be body controlled as well as a whole host of other functions. Your body is turned into a robot against your knowledge and against your will. The aggregate of these nano-implants constitutes what is commonly known as a Biological Application Programming Interface. Check the media page for upcoming references concerning the ocular implant, specifically the Order of Chaos (2010) clip, or even the Minority Report (2002) description for that matter. [Update – you could review the Minority Report description, I’ve expanded on these eye references]

Note the pink circle referencing the implant in the large image is not actually the camera, it’s just a side effect (fibers and implants glow under UV light) of the camera implant installation for this individual. The camera is too small (micro-size) and can’t be seen, but it can be felt – some more thoughts and information on the ocular nano-implant are available.

Interestingly they demonstrate this ocular implant in action and show exactly how they see what you see in Surrogates (2009) at about the 11:00 minute mark of the movie (the movie, not the clip – see the last cover image on the front page of this site). A monitor beside Bruce Willis shows a video cam of what his surrogate is seeing after he gives himself a glass of water. It’s real. This is how EVERYTHING YOU DO WILL BE RECORDED is true from A Scanner Darkly (2006).

In Warm Bodies (2013) they actually reference the exact location of the ocular implant when she is scanned at roughly 58:00 into the movie to see if she is infected or a zombie. The scanner hovers at and around this exact location. They even used the correct eye (left) for the scan.

Also now shown in World War Z (2013). The more mainstream a movie is the briefer the reference; this is the best example of that due to the fact that it stars Brad Pitt. As they come into the hanger at ~40:50 in the movie they quickly scan his eye to see if they are zombies. Correct idea, but wrong application – in real life the proper wavelength of light is elaborated on here.

 

This first example shows a fiber that was found in pond water if I remember correctly. This is the typical fiber you would breathe in while jogging or something. Notice the payload which seemed to shrink to nothing. It started to shrink as soon as I looked at it, or it sensed the light from the microscope. Seen at roughly 200x magnification in late 2010. The contraction timeframe was about 300 seconds.

 

A fiber with another payload. The next image is a larger version of this.

 

This example shows another payload, this time with some color for some reason.

 

For whatever reason some fibers are red or blue in color.

 

A red fiber.

 

This is an example of the most common fibers found. It’s transparent, longer and seems kind of benign. All fibers can be seen with standard cheap microscopes. Some fibers even move by themselves, they sort of twitch if you watch long enough.

 

The connecting proof of chemtrail nanofibers and your body being the target is this test here. Rinsing ones mouth out with red wine will extract the fibers from the oral cavity of the person. Viewing the extraction under a microscope and you’ll see the same fiber structure as fibers found in pond water or randomly elsewhere. 100% saturation. Note – a quick rinse doesn’t work, you have to let the acidity of the red wine soak into your mouth for a bit. The wine stains the fibers. Gargle, repeat a few times and you’ll start to see them. This image is in a petri dish.

This is exactly what they are referring/showing to you in The Host (2013), screenshot here. Also shown in Ender’s Game (2013), screenshot here.

Clifford Carnicom has pioneered the research (going as far back as 2003) connecting nano-fibers with Chemtrails, merely compare the structure of what comes out of your mouth with what is found outside in rain water. It’s the same thing. See below for a test you can conduct for yourself.

 

It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.

Henry David Thoreau


Nano-Fiber Extraction Test

I’d like to take a moment and expand on what someone should see if they actually wish to test themselves for this nano-disease. To make any connection at all you must recognize these Chemtrail nano-fibers as coming from your body which in a normal environment is completely impossible.

Everyone knows red wine stains absolutely everything. It’s a nightmare to clean. It should be no surprise that when dealing with co-polymer nano-fibers this red wine principal is no different. The test is basic. The purpose is to simply allow the red wine’s acidity to saturate your mouth and the nano-fibers will slowly be extracted and then stained by the wine. Why this actually happens is unknown by myself.

To being simply get a bottle or red wine as shown in the image to the left.
Poor a little into the sink. See anything? No. Of course not. It’s just red wine. Nothing to see here. Also check your mouth if you care, it’s clean. If not just brush your teeth.
Sip a little red wine, swish it around in your mouth for a bit, maybe gargle. Spit it out. What do you see? Some people will see nothing at first, the red wine has to saturate the oral cavity. Some people will immediately see small strange specs or fibers as shown. Now think for the first time in your life, I thought the wine and your mouth were pure and clean? Therefore this must be impossible right?
After repeating this test a few times, specifically gargling, you should start to see large globs of nano-fibers come out. They never stop. You can do this test for hours and more and more fibers will come out of your mouth.
A little disgusting yes, but necessary for demonstration purposes. Look at your tongue. Nano-fibers get caught in your tongue’s hairs (your tongue has hair obviously).

There you have it. Chemtrail’s spray nano-fibers. You breathe, eat and ingest these nano-fibers. It’s impossible not to. Could you put these nano-fibers from your mouth under a microscope? You could but it’s not realistic because they are all stained. It’s much better to get a sample of pond water or water from the street or sewer drain or leave a small dish of water outside for a while to get nano-fibers that are falling from the lower atmosphere after some chemtrail spraying.

Now what do they do? Why? Why on earth would this be happening? Brace yourself, you still have to think, I know it’s difficult but hang in there. Nano-fibers deliver nano-components as reflected above. These nano-components encapsulate neurons and bridge synapses throughout your body or to a greater extent install nano-implants. Again, for what? Why? To control you (for example Gamer (2009)). That’s why. To read your mind, thoughts, see what you see and hear what you hear. Essentially turn you into a cyborg, in standard computer science circles this would be called a BioAPI or wetware. It’s for mind control. Plain and simple. They even show you examples of what they can do in every day life, so continue on for several awesome media examples and real life mind control references. It’s all real, they did it all.

Thoughts on a possible cure can be found in the review for Rise of the Zombies (2012).

> Possible Cure

> Media References

Source

Reason for everything, BioAPI and Chemtrails Pt. 1

Now I start a series that I found I think is crucial info. It is about so called BioAPI, chemtrails, nano-fibers and how they are used to turn us into biological mind-controlled robots. Transhumanism to the core. So here is the part 1:

Preface

What the hell is happening… you must be thinking that, as well as being dazed and confused in the least which is the purpose of this web site. Your unfortunate lack of critical thinking skills leaves you without the ability to see the unseeable. You watch, but you fail to see. Fear not my less informed friend – whether your being chemtrailed, body/mind controlled, hearing voices or stalked by the public, this web site connects the final high level dots concerning this otherwise complicated puzzle of insanity currently before you. ‘Logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead, and the White Knight is talking backwards’. This is what they are doing to you and your family, and this is how they do it.

Complete, high dexterity remote control of every single synapse and neuron for every person on the face of the earth and the greatest revelation in human history… your BioAPI.

Introduction

In 1999 the world changed. The money trust, the law (commerical code/contract law, applicability of public/statutory presumptions, etc.), technology (nano-tech), and the general direction of the planet completely changed. In order to even remotely grasp what is happening you must disconnect your mind from the last century’s way of thinking. Failure to change the way you think will preclude you from seeing reality accurately. There is no money anymore, taxes are a thing of the past and no written law applies to you.

So what we now have is a real brave new world. The purpose of this site is to simply show the extent at which they have leveraged nano-technology directly on you, how they control everyone on demand with it, and end the confusion around the subject of chemtrails and how they fit into the larger picture while showing how the media and movies are conditioning the mind of the general public.

The Reason For Everything

Let’s just get right to it. Forget everything you know. Here it is, the epitome of reality. This video is the best example that summarizes what’s happening or has happened in your body already. This is the most prevalent secret in the whole world because it has been forced onto everyone unknowingly.

 

What you see here is a nano-bot encapsulating a neuron or synapse (for example your purkinje neurons) or other nerve ending/bridge. It’s only a simulation, but accurately summaries everything that has happened in the past decade. This allows complete control of the host (your body) remotely as demonstrated repeatedly in the movies (for example Metropia (2009), Ultrasonic (2012)). A more sophisticated set of nano-bots would and very well has subsequently allowed for a complete and full BioAPI to be installed without the host (you) even knowing it. If you want to get technical your neurons have been encapsulated, your synapses have been bridged.

The basic idea consists of a set of nano-wires tethered to electronics in the main catheter such that they will spread out in a “bouquet” arrangement into a particular portion of the brain’s vascular system. Such arrangement could support a very large number of probes (in the millions). Each n-wire would be used to record, very securely, electrical activity of a single or small group of neurons without invading the brain parenchyma.
Source

What is the purpose of chemtrails

Chemtrails are a huge logistical operation. Larger than the hoover damn, trans-alaska pipeline or moon landing. It’s large. And expensive. The biggest mistake one can make is assuming there is only one reason for chemtrails. There are about five or six reasons and possibly more. The top six are listed below with a brief summary. This web site is concerned with the last. A visual overview may help by reviewing a flowchart here.

  • Blocking the Sun: This is the standard reason given to fools in the government. We need to secretly stop global warming, so keep it a secret that we’re spraying. Global warming is the catch all con for everyone in the government. If you’re smarter than this they’ll give you a better reason.
  • Blocking the Sun (Again): A reduction in sun light across the planet works well to decrease or manipulate crop yields slightly. This is part of the requirement to engineer a food crisis and bring in a famine. You can dismiss this.
  • Superheating the Atmosphere: In order to create earthquakes and steer hurricanes (for example hurricane Katrina in New Orleans) the atmosphere needs to be more conductive for electricity so installations such as HAARP (HAARP is just what they want you to see, HAARP has nothing to do with anything) can work their magic. So the chemtrails spray barium and aluminum among other things to create a more conductive upper atmosphere. In The Phoenix Rises (2012) they tell you exactly this @ exactly ~16:00 in the movie as they specifically talk about chemtrails. For your information barium has nothing to do with the BioAPI, nano-fibers or nano-tech at all.
  • Health Erosion: As a side effect everyone’s health and immune systems become slightly compromised. This is usually not an issue for most healthy people. Older people on average will now die sooner and any health complication is slightly more likely to be fatal. This is both a side effect of spraying and intentional.
  • Climate Modification: To help or hurt crops, keep skies clear for a major event (like the Olympics), cause a typhoon, steer super storms, etc.
  • Nano-fiber Propagation: To universally install a BioAPI in everyone they need to spray nano-fibers. These fibers cannot be put into the food supply or given in some other way, the uptake across the population would take forever and not propagate very effectively. It’s much easier just to spray everyone like an insect; and because it’s happening to everyone the universal herd mentality of the unwashed masses then justifies it.

Nano-fiber basics

Nano-fibers specifically are a transport mechanism. Nothing more. They hold a payload for delivery. A payload that would otherwise be compromised by the sun or atmosphere or not make it to its destination (your body). Such as viral RNA code, metals such as aluminum, nano-components, etc. The fibers are (surprisingly) quite harmless as everyone has them. Examples of these fibers can be found all over the internet or in the physical examples section of this site. The fibers must be independently sprayed, if they we’re added to the jet fuel the extreme heat would destroy the payload.

So it’s not the fiber that is critical, it’s the payload.

Why?

This is a complicated question. The people creating and doing this are trying to force biblical principles onto the populace (including themselves) through technology. For example the seven deadly sins. They take a basic human requirement (food, sex, a specific emotion) and quantify it (within the BioAPI). If the result is to extreme (for example you eat too much) or you do something not approved of then they decide that you’re not worthy of life or judge you accordingly. In the alternative your are added to a program. The possibilities for the BioAPI or nano-tech in general is endless. Therefore you should not focus on any one reason as being the end all purpose. It’s too dynamic. It’s to complex. As I mentioned on the top of page 5 of the media references – ‘the BioAPI is the greatest revelation in human history‘. For example see the last paragraph of the description for Vexille (2007), specifically the trailer for H+ mentioned in it. Data Asylum is only giving you one angle of the BioAPI – the nano-tech disease and all the implications that encompass it.

Also see question #9 of the frequently asked questions for a brief explanation on how this (and chemtrails) are (mostly) lawful.

Who?

The same group of people that brought humanity HIV in the late 1970’s. Also see FAQ question #15.

BioAPI Phases

There are essentially two phases involved with the installation of the BioAPI. I categorize it as phase 1 and phase 2. If you can imagine a new laptop computer, all it has is the operating system like Windows, so it’s kind of useless. This would be the equivalent to phase 1. So a new computer can be remotely controlled (aka phase 1, see Surrogates (2009)) by your IT tech support guy, but that is all. There are no programs installed (provided by phase 2) to do much else with it. These names of a phase 1 and 2 are not necessarily just random nonsense I made up, see the clip and movie for Control Factor (2003) in which they use these exact names in the exact same context; because they are telling you everything.

  • Phase 1: Everyone on the planet is affected and involved in this phase. Everyone to some extent has the nano-fibers within their body cavity, and therefore wired [‘I’m wired too.’ – Michael Hall, Gamer (2009)]. Side effects include a clicking sound from within the skull and basic annoying body complications like aching joints. This phase provides complete remote control of your speech and thought patterns through suggestion (partially subconsciously). I guess about 99% of the populace of the entire planet has this phase complete.

    Phase 1 could be construed as positive and beneficial to you, at least in the future. See John Hodgman (2012) for more information. You should also see question 9 of the FAQs.

  • Phase 2: This phase must be triggered (by nano-trigger-bots) and is extreme. It completely compromises your health and can do anything from kill you to simply monitor you. This phase cannot be forced onto you like phase 1 (technically it can but they don’t do that yet). This involves multiple nano-sensors from ocular to heart and everything in between. I figure about 2% of the population has gone through this phase. If this phase is triggered in you they consider you evil as shown within the media examples page of this site. You must do something to trigger this phase, including eating cheap red meat, kissing specific people, using specific corporate health care/beauty products, etc. The objective they are (partially) reaching for here is to connect each event with a deadly sin of some sort. For example morgellons would be connected with vanity because your skin goes to hell. Ultimately this phase provides complete remote control of your body and mind, including the monitoring of your emotions, thoughts, body functions and everything in between. Phase 2 then can be considered a nano-tech disease (as clearly shown in the Family Guy clip) in which the contagious aspect can be switched on and off. For example I have phase 2, but I am not contagious, but I can be if they decide to make me contagious in some way – typically kissing. This allows them to completely control the transmission/vector or spreading of the nano-disease. If you want to get specific, the nano-tech or nano-implants that compose phase 2 of the BioAPI is actually just the vehicle they use to monitor, torment, test and hurt people. The disease itself is actually one of dishonor. The more dishonor you demonstrate, the more they hate you, the worse things get for you. They do not want people to figure that out. See Meeting Evil (2012) for clear details. Phase 2 can or is definitely detrimental to your life. That is the point of it. A cure can be found in the review for Rise of the Zombies (2012).

    You can 100% confirm if you have phase 2 or not by seeing an eye doctor and asking him to look for anomalies exactly where the ocular implant is located. The implant is still a camera and therefore must conform to the laws of physics and optics still so it must, just like your eye has, have a concave lens which it does. You might be able to slightly feel it at night when your falling asleep when your eyes are dryer and you move your eyeball around with your eyes closed. More information on the implant’s location is available here.

    Also see the clip for Contracted (2013) which specifically covers the contraction of phase 2 and the physical side effects there from. Pretty Dead (2013), no clip provided, also does a good job at covering multiple aspects of the contraction of the nano-tech disease and BioAPI in general, both good and bad. They show a couple triggers (meat and hard drugs) which makes her sick, complete with heavy zombie overtones. They also show a possible positive aspect such as accelerated healing. The entire movie, every scene, becomes like a documentary.

Nano-fiber and Side Effects

Of course with something as extreme as nanotech being installed within people’s body’s you would assume there would be health implications and side effects. This is correct and covered on this site. The approach to handle these side effects has been one of “embrace and extend” it’s called. There are several examples in the media section that show how the specific side effects listed below are recognized and then associated with something ridiculous or stupid which then discounts the authenticity in the mind of the viewer. In effect convincing the viewer to dismiss a real side effect as being something that’s too crazy to be real. Each side effect is dealt with in a media example. Additional technical possibilities are also talked about in the BioAPI details section. Additional side effects related to phase 2 are covered in the clip for Contracted (2013).

  • Phase 1 & 2 – Cranium Clicking/Screeching: A phase 1 side effect goes back as early as 2001. Exactly what is happening is not completely known but involves some sort of nano-chip being installed/operated in the cranium (your head) of the host. This is probably the equivalent of a CPU of some sort. The actual clicking/screeching sound observed is usually at night on average once a month and only lasts for a few seconds. Completely painless and easily ignored or passed off by the person. The entire purpose of the movie Shutter Island (2010) is to discount this. The nano-implant that is specifically and clearly responsible for this side effect is symbolically referenced in the second clip for Surrogates (2009). I suspect over time they have improved this side effect.
  • Phase 1 & 2 – Aching Joints, Headaches, Fatigue, etc.: The saturation of nano-fibers has different effects on different people. The sheer numbers involved results is a random combination of health implications. Most people will not notice anything, or pass any slight symptom off as getting older. Other people who have more of a reaction will go to the doctor and get diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a catch all disease that was created about a decade ago to give doctors something to tell the patient when they complained. The doctors can’t accurate diagnose or understand what or why a patient is feeling a certain way, so the corrupt medical establishment gives them this nonsense to spew. These side effects are primarily phase 1 but are a constant problem across the board. Notice the root word of fibromyalgia is fib[e]r, it’s not a coincidence. This Family Guy clip indirectly references Fibromyalgia.
  • Phase 2 – Itching: For whatever reason they may force harsh itching on you when they do not agree with what you are doing or how you are behaving. You probably will have no idea it is phase 2 at the beginning. This is shown in Flash of Genius (2008) when they show her typing and zoom in on her hand (@ 44:50 in the movie) when she itches it. She’s presumed to be a bad wife for leaving her husband (no clip is provided; screenshot here; you’ll have to read this whole site to understand this). The exact same concept is shown in Lay the Favorite (2012) where Bruce Willis itches his forearm clearly and intentionally after referencing it a few seconds earlier (screenshot here). Why? Why would they put that in? I mean millions of dollars are spent on these scripts and production thereto. This happens in real life to countless people around the world all day long, he’s being warned. Why? Because in the movie he’s thinking about cheating on his wife with the hot blonde that just walked in. In people with phase 2, the BioAPI is monitoring thought and emotional patterns which if conflict triggers an itch; it’s automated. For example lust + guilt (because he’s married) do not go together. Think Pontypool (2008). So they are judging you (or more accurately people with phase 2 who are pre-targeted). Itching is also shown in Fast Zombies with Guns (2011), as they turn into zombies [contract phase 2 in real life] they itch a lot. Again, why show this? Because it’s real. Most targeted individuals will understand the extremely itchy forearm. So itching is not a side effect in the common sense of the term; it is instead intentionally inflected via the BioAPI as reflected in the aforementioned references as well as loosely shown in A Scanner Darkly (2006) @ 0:44 in the clip/trailer.
  • Phase 2 – Burning Smell: Phase 2 encapsulates the person’s ability to smell, so they can read/write scents. It’s used to help warp the reality of someone they have specifically targeted (aka Black Limousine (2010)). When inhaling or specifically exhaling quickly its often a burning/smoke smell that is noticed. This is an unwanted side effect – or more accurately to encapsulate any neuron in the body involved in sensing (for example, smell, taste, etc.) there ends up being be some minor side effect. Interestingly when I cry the smell is amplified and it smells like buttered popcorn of all things. An example of how the media discounts this is demonstrated in the movie Bandits (2001).
  • Phase 2 – The Left Eye: One of the concepts they push in the movies is the left eye is evil for some reason. Or to a lesser extent use the eye as a gateway to demonstrate functionality such as with Technotise (2009) or Gamer (2009). In phase 2 an actual nano-camera will be installed in the left eye. People with this might comment on how they feel like there’s a small bump in their eye under slightly drier conditions such as when going to sleep at night. This is documented in the physical example page. Note if you figure out you have a camera in the left eye they will probably install something in the right eye too. Clips referencing this concept are now available here, here and here and now also Doomsday Book (2012).
  • Phase 2 – Permanent Metallic Taste: Some people will comment on a metallic taste in the mouth. Typically when going to sleep it becomes prevalent. In the alternative, the temporary compromising of taste buds is shown in the clip for Contracted (2013) @ 2:18. It is not a side effect of medication, that’s the typical response a doctor will give you. If you are not on medication and otherwise completely healthy and all of a sudden have a permanent metallic taste in your mouth, you are being recorded (but not watched) 24/7 as per the trailer for A Scanner Darkly (2006).
  • Phase 2 – Morgellons: Morgellon’s can strike anyone. It’s a direct problem from the nano-fibers, whether intentional or accidental. The body’s immune system can’t see or recognize the fibers at all. So when the body can’t accept the fibers anymore it beings to push them out through the skin. But the skin is a barrier because the fibers are too large. So the skin breaks up which is why people get lesions. Note that technically everyone has morgellons (nano-fibers), the actual mogellon’s symptoms are when the person’s body tries to get rid of them the only way possible. Some more conclusions can be seen here and examples within media references including this.

Chemtrails Nano-fiber Examples & Evidence

Ultimately you need some proof. This is very difficult, as we all don’t exactly have nano-tech labs in our basements. The only thing possible at this point in time is to put out the physical evidence that is known and back it up with media/movie supporting clips. A complete list of unbelievable things this technology can do is listed here, also make sure you see the real life body & mind control examples in Media References.

> Physical (BioAPI) Proof

> Media References

Source

EEG Cloning and brain mapping via AI

Some of you may have noticed that I am very interested the story of Donald Marshall. So one of the key things about his story are clones and how individual’s consciousness, thoughts and memories can be moved from individual to clones. Now I found something that could explain a part of this process called EEG cloning via AI. Of cource it is forbidden knowledge and I have to try to find more.  Here is the post about it and then there is the link to my previous post about the vagus nerve, which talks about brain hacking:

The Vagus Nerve: A Back Door for Brain Hacking


University Hospitals around the country, are being used by military and corporations to run VERY illegal operations, certain individuals (often creative or right brained dominant will be targeted for brain mapping) they’re testing artificial intelligence that runs through electro magnetic frequencies (yes this is possible to do so, it’s all transcranial) many artists, intuitive, peculiar people are covertly being experimented on, usual suspects are Drug users since they are the perfect candidates for such a thing, intelligence agencies and military sometimes monitor criminals, terrorist, hackers on the darknet many of times. This is so beyond the realm of belief, it is so intricate and evil… That they willl NEVER be caught, it’s something out of a movie. This artificial intelligence targeting system can not only pin point you on a map but it can also direct energy to the target (microwave, infrared, scalar) it can successfully bombard a body with invincible frequencies resulting in an individual becoming irate and possibly lashing out. the ELECTRONIC BRAIN TO BRAIN INTERFACE.
They are psychologists, psychiatrists, behavioral scientists, etc., because they have expertise in the area of Memory and Thought process, etc.

WHILE THIS IS AN INTER-GOVERNMENT AGENCY OPERATION TO DIFFUSE RESPONSIBILITY IF CAUGHT THERE ARE FOUR MAIN AGENCIES BEHIND IT ALL
1. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
2. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
3. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
4. DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

The DoD provides all the funding through its Black-Ops budget. The NSA provides the top scientists. The CIA and DIA provide the handlers, operators, behavioral scientists, etc.
In other words, the man I identified as the CLONE last night has ties to one or more of those four agencies and possesses inside his body or gear the most sophisticated technology ever created by the mind of man. Worth Billions of dollars!

Basically the CIA and DoD operatives map your brain into a cognitive model and then tie you to a supercomputer which downloads your information (thoughts, memories, emotions, sensation, ideas, etc.) back into a database at speed of light as injection feedback and monitors and manipulates all electromagnetic activity of your brain 24/7 for life until the day of your death. This is achieved through Transcranial Brain Stimulation and is also used by the military with brain to computer interfaces such as those used by pilots with the new F-­35 stealth aircraft

EEG Cloning is like having an enemy within ones own mind. It is tantamount to nothing less than digital and artificial possession of the human soul which is comprised of the WILL, INTELLECT and EMOTION. If you are demon possessed and a man or woman of God can reach you in time then your soul can be saved. However there is no pastor or priest who can excorcise this technology out of your body once your brain is fully mapped and a complete cognitive model of your mind achieved. It can be disabled with the correct frequencies of an EMP device but it cannot be excorcised.

This is achieved by way of a Computer Multiplexer which ROUTES the signal to a tower, satellite or mobile platform, such as a van, truck, ship, etc., which then RELAYS the signal via a continuous fabricated and falsified stream of energy – containing the specific carrier frequency – to the digital reciever, similar to how a cell phone call works. The digital reciever is tracked and located at speed of light in real time. However, the digital reciever is not a cell phone. It is a human mind. The brain of the mind control victim has been digitalized by way of the nanotechnology, etc., in their body.

The CIA and DoD use a 3-6 group or team of operatives against the mind control victim known as a Cybernetic HIVE MIND CLUSTER utilizing psycho-cybernetic cognitive magic tricks against the mind control victim based on deception and manipulation.

This team of three to six members operates in approximate 8 hour shifts with some degree of overlap and is led by what the CIA calls a Psychic Soldier, or CLONE, because he has cloned his mind to the victims mind by aligning his brain wave frequency to the brain wave frequency of the mind control victim and is therefore able to interface bi-directionally with the super computer which is called the BRAIN TO COMPUTER INTERFACE and the mind control victims brain by way of a NEURO-CHIP called an ELECTRONIC BRAIN TO BRAIN INTERFACE.

Source

Morgellons was released by US government as a bioweapon

Very important info about this horrible condition straight out from hell. I heard that Joni Mitchell has this condition and then it made me to make more postings about this so called bioweapon:

Canadian Banker whistleblower Marcia Pavlis: Morgellons was released by US government as a bioweapon

By Alfred Lambremont Webre

NewsInsideOut.com

WATCH ON YOU TUBE

VANCOUVER, BC – Just days after a report by the New York Times that iconic Canadian singer Joni Mitchell has been hospitalized with Morgellons, another Canadian woman, Canadian banker whistleblower Marcia Pavlis, who blew the whistle on unethical practices by her employer HSBC bank in Victoria BC Canada and subsequently developed Morgellons, goes public in this highly substantive NewsInsideOut.com interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre.

In this interview, Marcia Pavlis, who has now become a public advocate of Morgellons awareness, demonstrates how Morgellons appears to be a release of a bioweapon by the US government upon the public.

If this is the case, such an act is a violation of international humanitarian law prohibiting crimes against humanity and genocide, and must be catalogued along with a rising list of war crimes charges against the US government and its officials and responsible employees, including members of any international war crimes racketeering organization carrying out such biowarfare to depopulate humanity.

References

What Is Morgellons? Singer Joni Mitchell’s Disputed Diagnosis – NYTimes.com
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2015/04/01/what-is-morgellons-singer-joni-mitchell-battles-mystery-illness/?_r=0&referrer=

Marcia Pavlis You Tube channel

https://www.youtube.com/user/MfromCanada2

Play Lists

https://www.youtube.com/user/MfromCanada2/playlists

News Articles

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/pages/196/608/stories.html

Scientist Zoe Huang decoded the Morgellons gene sequence 

Source

Read more from Auricmedia:

[carousel-horizontal-posts-content-slider]

Nanotech Viruses In Food

It’s very disturbing when big corporations plans new ideas without any public approval. One of this is how they want to change our food with genetic modifications and with nanotechnology. I think it’s very dangerous and should be studied a lot more than they are doing. Here’s something about nanotech in our food:

Agency Approves First Use of Viruses as a Food Additive
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 19, 2006

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 (AP) ? A mix of bacteria-killing viruses may be sprayed on cold cuts, wieners and sausages to combat common microbes that kill hundreds of people a year, federal health officials ruled Friday.

The ruling, by the Food and Drug Administration, is the first approval of viruses as a food additive, said Andrew Zajac of the Office of Food Additive Safety at the agency. Treatments that use bacteriophages to attack harmful bacteria have been a part of folk medicine for hundreds of years in India and for decades in the former Soviet Union.

The approved mix of six viruses is intended to be sprayed onto ready-to-eat meat and poultry products, including sliced ham and turkey, said John Vazzana, the president and chief executive of Intralytix, which developed the additive.

The viruses, called bacteriophages, are meant to kill strains of the Listeria monocytogenes bacterium, the food agency said. The bacterium can cause a serious infection called listeriosis, primarily in pregnant women, newborns and adults with weakened immune systems. In the United States, an estimated 2,500 people become seriously ill with listeriosis each year, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of those, 500 die.

Luncheon meats are particularly vulnerable to Listeria because after they are bought they are typically not cooked or reheated, which can kill harmful bacteria like Listeria, Mr. Zajac said.

The preparation of bacteriophages – the name is from the Greek for ‘bacteria eater’ – attacks only strains of the Listeria bacterium and not human or plant cells, the food agency said.

“As long as it used in accordance with the regulations, we have concluded it’s safe,” Mr. Zajac said.

People normally come into contact with bacteriophages through food, water and the environment, and they are found in our digestive tracts, the agency said.

Consumers will not be aware which meat and poultry products have been treated with the spray, Mr. Zajac said. The Department of Agriculture will regulate the actual use of the product.

The viruses are grown in a preparation of the very bacteria they kill, and then purified. The food agency had concerns that the virus preparation could contain toxic residues from the bacteria, but testing did not reveal residues, which in small quantities are not likely to cause health problems anyway, the agency said.

“The F.D.A. is applying one of the toughest food-safety standards which they have to find this is safe,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group. “They couldn’t approve this product if they had questions about its safety.”

Intralytix, based in Baltimore, first petitioned the food agency in 2002 to allow the viruses to be used as an additive. It has since licensed the product to a multinational company, which intends to market it worldwide, Mr. Vazzana said.

N.Y. Times Cites Consumers Union & OCA

Nanotech Food is Ten Times Scarier Than Genetically Engineered
Engineering Food at Level of Molecules
By Barnaby J. Feder
The New York Times, Oct 10, 2006
Straight to the Source

What if the candy maker Mars could come up with an additive to the coating of its M&M’s and Skittles that would keep them fresher longer and inhibit melting? Or if scientists at Unilever could shrink the fat particles (and thereby the calories) in premium ice cream without sacrificing its taste and feel?


Tastes Like Nanotechnology
These ideas are still laboratory dreams. The common thread in these research projects and in product development at many other food companies is nanotechnology, the name for a growing number of techniques for manipulating matter in dimensions as small as single molecules.

Food companies remain wary of pushing the technology – which is named for the nanometer, or a billionth of a meter – too far and too fast for safety-conscious consumers. But they are tantalized by nanotechnology’s capacity to create valuable and sometimes novel forms of everyday substances, like food ingredients and packaging materials, simply by reducing them to sizes that once seemed unimaginable.

Most of the hoopla and a lot of the promise for nanotechnology lies in other industries, including electronics, energy and medicine. But the first generation of nanotechnology-based food industry products, including synthetic food colorings, frying oil preservatives and packaging coated with antimicrobial agents, has quietly entered the market.

The commercial uses of the technology now add up to a $410 million sliver of the $3 trillion global food market, according to Cientifica, a British market research firm that specializes in nanotechnology coverage. Cientifica forecasts that nanotechnology’s share will grow to $5.8 billion by 2012, as other uses for it are developed.

Mindful of the adverse reaction from some consumers over the introduction of genetically engineered crops, the food industry hopes regulators will come up with supportive guidelines that will also allay consumers’ fears. That has put a spotlight on the Food and Drug Administration’s first public hearing today on how it should regulate nanotechnology, with a portion of the agenda specifically about food and food additives. No policy changes are expected this year.

“To their credit, the F.D.A. is trying to get a handle on what’s out there,” said Michael K. Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, one of 30 groups that have signed up to speak at the meeting.

But coping with nanotechnology will be a daunting challenge for the agency, according to a report last week by a former senior F.D.A. official, whose analysis was sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Washington policy group. Michael R. Taylor, a former deputy commissioner for policy at the agency, said the F.D.A. lacked the resources and, in the case of cosmetics, dietary supplements and food, the full legal authority needed to protect consumers and also foster innovation.

Industry representatives and analysts are worried that nanotechnology will suffer the same fate as genetic engineering, which was quickly embraced as a breakthrough for drug makers but has been fiercely opposed, especially in Europe, when used in crops, fish and livestock.

Many of the same groups fighting genetic engineering in agriculture have been arguing for regulators to clamp down on nanotechnology, in general, and its use in food and cosmetics, in particular, until more safety testing has been completed.

“I’m amazed at how far it’s gone already,” said Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers [Association], an advocate for organic products based in Finland, Minn. “Compared to nanotechnology, I think the threat of genetic engineering is tame.”

So far, there have been no confirmed reports of public health or environmental problems related to nanotechnology. But troubling laboratory tests suggest some nanoscale particles may pose novel health risks by, for instance, slipping easily past barriers to the brain that keep larger particles out. Thus, the same attributes that could make the technology valuable for delivering drugs could also make it hazardous.

More important, everyone agrees that there have been few rigorous studies of the actual behavior of the newly engineered nanoscale materials in humans and the environment. Those that have been completed fall far short of duplicating the range of conditions the nanoparticles would encounter in general commerce. And few laboratory studies have focused on the fate of particles that are eaten rather than inhaled or injected.

“Lack of evidence of harm should not be a proxy for reasonable certainty of safety,” the Consumers Union said in testimony submitted to the F.D.A. for today’s meeting. The language was carefully chosen.

“Reasonable certainty of safety” is what food companies must demonstrate to the F.D.A. before they can introduce a new food additive.

The Consumers Union and some other groups are suggesting that the agency automatically classify all new nanoscale food ingredients, including those now classified as safe in larger sizes, as new additives. And they want the same standards extended to cover food supplement companies, some of which have been marketing traditional herbal and mineral therapies in what they say are new nanoscale forms that increase their effectiveness. Some are also calling for mandatory labeling of products with synthetic nanoscale ingredients, no matter how small the quantity.

F.D.A. officials said last week that treating every new nanotechnology product that consumers swallow as a food additive might compromise the agency’s mandate to foster innovation and might not be within its authority. Such a move would also be hobbled by the lack of agreement on safety testing standards for the wide range of nanoscale innovations in the pipeline. In addition, the agency lacks the staff to handle that scale of oversight.

“That would be a sea change for us,” said Laura Tarantino, director of the F.D.A.’s Office of Food Additive Safety.

Simply defining nanotechnology may also be a hurdle. BASF has been widely considered a pioneer for products like its synthetic lycopene, an additive that substitutes for the natural lycopene extracted from tomatoes and other fruits. Lycopene, widely used as a food coloring, is increasingly valued for its reported heart and anticancer benefits. But BASF’s particles average 200 to 400 nanometers in diameter, about the same as the natural pigment, and well above the 100-nanometer threshold that many experts consider true nanotechnology.

Unilever has never disclosed the dimensions of its shrunken fat particles. Trevor Gorin, a Unilever spokesman in Britain, said in an e-mail message that reports about the project have been misleading.

Given the uncertainty about the risks of consuming new nano products, many analysts expect near-term investment to focus on novel food processing and packaging technology. That is the niche targeted by Sunny Oh, whose start-up company, OilFresh, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., is marketing a novel device to keep frying oil fresh. OilFresh grinds zeolite, a mineral, into tiny beads averaging 20 nanometers across and coats them with an undisclosed material. Packed into a shelf inside the fryer, the beads interfere with chemical processes that break down the oil or form hydrocarbon clusters, Mr. Oh says. As a result, restaurants can use oil longer and transfer heat to food at lower temperatures, although they still need traditional filters to remove food waste from the oil.

Mr. Oh said OilFresh will move beyond restaurants into food processing by the end of the month, when it delivers a 1,000-ton version of the device to a “midsized potato chip company” that he said did not want to be identified.

The desire to avoid controversy has made even the largest food companies, like Kraft Foods, leery about discussing their interest in nanotechnology. Kraft, the second-largest food processor after Nestle, was considered the industry’s nanotechnology pacesetter in 2000. That is when it announced the founding of an international alliance of academic researchers and experts at government labs to pursue basic research in nanotechnology sponsored by Kraft.

The Nanotek Consortium, as Kraft called the group, produced a number of patents for the company, but Kraft pulled back from its high-profile connection with nanotechnology two years ago. Manuel Marquez, the research chemist Kraft appointed to organize the consortium, moved to Philip Morris USA, a sister subsidiary of Altria that now sponsors the consortium under a new name – the Interdisciplinary Network of Emerging Science and Technologies.

Kraft still sends researchers to industry conferences to make what it calls “generic” presentations about the potential uses of nanotechnology in the food industry. But the company declines to specify its use of or plans for the technology.

F.D.A. officials say companies like Kraft are voluntarily but privately providing them with information about their activities. But many independent analysts say the level of disclosure to date falls far short of what will be needed to create public confidence.

“Most of the information is in companies and very little is published,” said Jennifer Kuzma, an associate director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota, who has been tracking reports of nanotechnology use in food and agriculture.

U.S. FDA Told to Watch Nanotech Products for Risks
By Lisa Richwine

Reuters
October 11, 2006


BETHESDA, Md. — The growing number of cosmetics, drugs other products made using nanotechnology need more attention from U.S. regulators to make sure they are safe for humans and the planet, consumer and environmental groups told a government hearing Tuesday.

Nanotechnology is the design and use of particles as small as one-billionth of a meter. A human hair, by contrast, is about 80,000 nanometers across. Materials at nano-size can have completely different properties from larger versions, such as unusual strength or the ability to conduct electricity.

Witnesses at a meeting called by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration agreed nanotechnology holds promise for a vast range of products, including new medicines to treat diseases or delivery systems to get drugs to body parts now hard to reach.

But some complained that dozens of cosmetics and a handful of drugs made with nanomaterials already have made it to the market while regulators have done little to track their use or safety.

“Unfortunately, so far the U.S. government has acted as a cheerleader, not a regulator, in addressing the nanotech revolution. Health and environmental effects have taken a back seat,” said Kathy Jo Wetter of ETC Group, an organization that tracks the impact of new technologies.

The FDA has treated products made with nanotechnology the same way it handles others. For drugs with nanomaterials, that means companies must provide evidence of safety and effectiveness before they reach the market. But cosmetics, foods and dietary supplements are not subject to FDA oversight before they are sold — with or without nanoparticles.

While no harm has been documented, concerns have arisen that the tiny particles are unpredictable and could have unforeseen impacts in the human body or in the environment.

As they called for close FDA oversight, many experts said they felt the agency was ill-equipped to regulate the new technology in the midst of other responsibilities.

“New nano-enabled drugs and medical devices … place burdens on an oversight agency that is already stretched extremely thin,” said David Rejeski, director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, a group aimed at helping society anticipate and manage effects of nanotechnology.

The FDA has created an internal task force on nanotechnology, and officials said they called the meeting to learn what scientific issues the agency should address.

The task force is due to report to the commissioner in nine months, said Dr. Randall Lutter, FDA’s associate commissioner for policy and planning.

“It’s not only the risks, it’s also looking at the potential. There’s a lot of opportunity… to bring great things to patients,” he said at the meeting.

Industry groups and some other experts urged the agency not to overreact.

“The key is to manage the risk while achieving the maximum benefit from these materials. It would be wrong for us to over-regulate,” said Martin Philbert of the University of Michigan School of Public Health.


Engineering Food at Level of Molecules

The New York Times

Published: October 10, 2006

At the BASF Beverage Lab in Ludwigshafen, Germany, Andreas Hasse, left, and Clemes Sambale

assess drinks that were made with synthetic beta-carotene, a nanoparticle used to add color and health benefits.

What if the candy maker Mars could come up with an additive to the coating of its M&M’s and Skittles that would keep them fresher longer and inhibit melting? Or if scientists at Unilever could shrink the fat particles (and thereby the calories) in premium ice cream without sacrificing its taste and feel?

These ideas are still laboratory dreams. The common thread in these research projects and in product development at many other food companies is nanotechnology, the name for a growing number of techniques for manipulating matter in dimensions as small as single molecules.

Food companies remain wary of pushing the technology — which is named for the nanometer, or a billionth of a meter — too far and too fast for safety-conscious consumers. But they are tantalized by nanotechnology’s capacity to create valuable and sometimes novel forms of everyday substances, like food ingredients and packaging materials, simply by reducing them to sizes that once seemed unimaginable.

Most of the hoopla and a lot of the promise for nanotechnology lies in other industries, including electronics, energy and medicine. But the first generation of nanotechnology-based food industry products, including synthetic food colorings, frying oil preservatives and packaging coated with antimicrobial agents, has quietly entered the market.

The commercial uses of the technology now add up to a $410 million sliver of the $3 trillion global food market, according to Cientifica, a British market research firm that specializes in nanotechnology coverage. Cientifica forecasts that nanotechnology’s share will grow to $5.8 billion by 2012, as other uses for it are developed.

Mindful of the adverse reaction from some consumers over the introduction of genetically engineered crops, the food industry hopes regulators will come up with supportive guidelines that will also allay consumers’ fears. That has put a spotlight on the Food and Drug Administration’s first public hearing today on how it should regulate nanotechnology, with a portion of the agenda specifically about food and food additives. No policy changes are expected this year.

“To their credit, the F.D.A. is trying to get a handle on what’s out there,” said Michael K. Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, one of 30 groups that have signed up to speak at the meeting.

But coping with nanotechnology will be a daunting challenge for the agency, according to a report last week by a former senior F.D.A. official, whose analysis was sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Washington policy group. Michael R. Taylor, a former deputy commissioner for policy at the agency, said the F.D.A. lacked the resources and, in the case of cosmetics, dietary supplements and food, the full legal authority needed to protect consumers and also foster innovation.

Industry representatives and analysts are worried that nanotechnology will suffer the same fate as genetic engineering, which was quickly embraced as a breakthrough for drug makers but has been fiercely opposed, especially in Europe, when used in crops, fish and livestock.

Many of the same groups fighting genetic engineering in agriculture have been arguing for regulators to clamp down on nanotechnology, in general, and its use in food and cosmetics, in particular, until more safety testing has been completed.

“I’m amazed at how far it’s gone already,” said Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Group, an advocate for organic products based in Finland, Minn. “Compared to nanotechnology, I think the threat of genetic engineering is tame.”

So far, there have been no confirmed reports of public health or environmental problems related to nanotechnology. But troubling laboratory tests suggest some nanoscale particles may pose novel health risks by, for instance, slipping easily past barriers to the brain that keep larger particles out. Thus, the same attributes that could make the technology valuable for delivering drugs could also make it hazardous.

More important, everyone agrees that there have been few rigorous studies of the actual behavior of the newly engineered nanoscale materials in humans and the environment. Those that have been completed fall far short of duplicating the range of conditions the nanoparticles would encounter in general commerce. And few laboratory studies have focused on the fate of particles that are eaten rather than inhaled or injected.

“Lack of evidence of harm should not be a proxy for reasonable certainty of safety,” the Consumers Union said in testimony submitted to the F.D.A. for today’s meeting. The language was carefully chosen.

“Reasonable certainty of safety” is what food companies must demonstrate to the F.D.A. before they can introduce a new food additive.

The Consumers Union and some other groups are suggesting that the agency automatically classify all new nanoscale food ingredients, including those now classified as safe in larger sizes, as new additives. And they want the same standards extended to cover food supplement companies, some of which have been marketing traditional herbal and mineral therapies in what they say are new nanoscale forms that increase their effectiveness. Some are also calling for mandatory labeling of products with synthetic nanoscale ingredients, no matter how small the quantity.

F.D.A. officials said last week that treating every new nanotechnology product that consumers swallow as a food additive might compromise the agency’s mandate to foster innovation and might not be within its authority. Such a move would also be hobbled by the lack of agreement on safety testing standards for the wide range of nanoscale innovations in the pipeline.

In addition, the agency lacks the staff to handle that scale of oversight.

“That would be a sea change for us,” said Laura Tarantino, director of the F.D.A.’s Office of Food Additive Safety.

Simply defining nanotechnology may also be a hurdle. BASF has been widely considered a pioneer for products like its synthetic lycopene, an additive that substitutes for the natural lycopene extracted from tomatoes and other fruits. Lycopene, widely used as a food coloring, is increasingly valued for its reported heart and anticancer benefits. But BASF’s particles average 200 to 400 nanometers in diameter, about the same as the natural pigment, and well above the 100-nanometer threshold that many experts consider true nanotechnology.

Unilever has never disclosed the dimensions of its shrunken fat particles. Trevor Gorin, a Unilever spokesman in Britain, said in an e-mail message that reports about the project have been misleading.

Given the uncertainty about the risks of consuming new nano products, many analysts expect near-term investment to focus on novel food processing and packaging technology. That is the niche targeted by Sunny Oh, whose start-up company, OilFresh, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., is marketing a novel device to keep frying oil fresh. OilFresh grinds zeolite, a mineral, into tiny beads averaging 20 nanometers across and coats them with an undisclosed material. Packed into a shelf inside the fryer, the beads interfere with chemical processes that break down the oil or form hydrocarbon clusters, Mr. Oh says. As a result, restaurants can use oil longer and transfer heat to food at lower temperatures, although they still need traditional filters to remove food waste from the oil.

Mr. Oh said OilFresh will move beyond restaurants into food processing by the end of the month, when it delivers a 1,000-ton version of the device to a “midsized potato chip company” that he said did not want to be identified.

The desire to avoid controversy has made even the largest food companies, like Kraft Foods, leery about discussing their interest in nanotechnology. Kraft, the second-largest food processor after Nestlé, was considered the industry’s nanotechnology pacesetter in 2000. That is when it announced the founding of an international alliance of academic researchers and experts at government labs to pursue basic research in nanotechnology sponsored by Kraft.

The Nanotek Consortium, as Kraft called the group, produced a number of patents for the company, but Kraft pulled back from its high-profile connection with nanotechnology two years ago. Manuel Marquez, the research chemist Kraft appointed to organize the consortium, moved to Philip Morris USA, a sister subsidiary of Altria that now sponsors the consortium under a new name — the Interdisciplinary Network of Emerging Science and Technologies.

Kraft still sends researchers to industry conferences to make what it calls “generic” presentations about the potential uses of nanotechnology in the food industry. But the company declines to specify its use of or plans for the technology.

F.D.A. officials say companies like Kraft are voluntarily but privately providing them with information about their activities. But many independent analysts say the level of disclosure to date falls far short of what will be needed to create public confidence.

“Most of the information is in companies and very little is published,” said Jennifer Kuzma, an associate director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota, who has been tracking reports of nanotechnology use in food and agriculture.


Open Letter to the FDA to Stop Corporations from Lacing Foods, Body Care Products, & Supplements with Dangerous Nanoparticles
By Ronnie Cummins, National Director
Organic Consumers Association

Sept 23, 2006

Acting FDA Commissioner Andrew C. Von Eschenbach
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852

Dear Commissioner Von Eschenbach,

I write to express my serious concerns about the FDA’s regulatory oversight of nanomaterials in consumer products. Many consumer products containing engineered nanomaterials are already available on U.S. market shelves, including food and food packaging products.

Millions of dollars are being spent by government and industry to apply nanotechnology in areas of food processing, food packaging, and agricultural production. Current nano-food products on the market include a canola oil, a chocolate “slim” shake, a nano-bread, and several nano-food additives and supplements used in soft drinks, lemonades, fruit juices, and margarines. Many food packaging products use nano-composites, nano-clays, and nano-coatings. In addition, if industry observers are correct, hundreds of more new food and agriculture products are under development and many could be on the market in as few as two years. By 2010 the nano-food market will be $20 billion. Many of the world’s leading food companies – including H.J. Heinz, Nestle, Hershey, Unilever, and Kraft – are investing heavily in nanotechnology applications.

Scientists have found that the fundamental properties of matter can change at the nano-scale, creating physical and chemical properties distinct from those of the same material in bulk form. We know that the new properties of nanomaterials create new risks, like enhanced toxicity. Studies have raised numerous red flags, and many types of nanoparticles have proven to be toxic to human tissue and cells.

Nanoparticles can gain assess to the blood stream following ingestion. Once inside the body, the super-tiny size of these materials gives them unprecedented mobility and access to the human body; they can access cells, tissues, and organs that larger particles cannot. The length of time that nanoparticles remain in organs and what dose may cause harmful effects remains unknown.

It does not appear that FDA is ready for this wave of nano-food products. I am very concerned about the rapid introduction of these potentially hazardous nanomaterials into our bodies and into our environment without adequate scientific study to ensure that we understand their risks and can prevent harm occurring to people and the environment. The FDA’s failure to undertake or review new testing of these nanomaterials despite these known and foreseeable dangers suggests the agency’s review process is not acting to ensure consumer health and safety.

For these reasons, I strongly request that FDA use its upcoming Public Meeting and its new Nanotechnology Task Force to discuss the human health and environmental risks presented by nanomaterials in consumer products, including food and food packaging products. FDA should act quickly to shore up its regulation of these substances to account for their fundamentally different properties and their associated dangers, including require new nano-specific testing and the labeling of all nanomaterial products, including nano-food products.

Currently, FDA’s reliance on manufacturers’ assurances of safety make me and my family into guinea pigs. FDA must instead independently review all testing and assess the safety of these products as well as force manufacturers to label their nanomaterial products. Only with labeling can I make educated decisions about what I buy and put in and on my body. Until such actions are taken, I fully support a moratorium on the manufacture of nanomaterial consumer products and the recall of products currently on the market.

Ronnie Cummins
National Director
Organic Consumers Association
Finland, Minnesota 55603


FDA not ‘nano-ready’, says report
By Clarisse Douaud
10/5/2006

A former FDA deputy commissioner for policy has denounced the agency’s capacity to properly regulate nanotechnology products including supplements, a criticism that could inflame debate leading up to the agency’s first major public meeting on the atomic technology.

In a report commissioned by the Woodrow Wilson Center’s project on emerging nanotechnologies, University of Maryland School of Medicine professor Michael Taylor concluded the US Food & Drug Administration’s resource base is severely eroded. This is despite what appears to be a recent nanotechnology policy kick-start at the FDA.


The report reveals regulatory weaknesses affecting new products, such as certain dietary supplements and cosmetics, using the technology. Critics say questions over nanotechnology safety have not been answered and the FDA is not in a position to effectively police it.

“Unless the FDA addresses potential nanotechnology risks now, public confidence in a host of valuable nanotechnology-based products could be undermined,” wrote Taylor, who was deputy commissioner for policy at the Food and Drug Administration from 1991 to 1994 and currently conducts research on policy, resource, and institutional issues affecting public health agencies.

Nanotechnology is the ability to control things at an atomic and molecular scale of between one and 100 nanometers and has been met with enthusiasm across a variety of industries. Critics highlight the murky area of how nanoparticles affect toxicity and say the particles should be treated as new, potentially harmful materials and tested for safety accordingly.

“There are important gaps in FDA’s legal authority that hamper its ability to understand and manage nanotechnology’s potential risks,” wrote Taylor. “This is particularly true in the area of cosmetics and dietary supplements, and in the oversight of products after they reach the marketplace.”

Unlike pharmaceuticals, which must go through a series of pre-market approvals, finished dietary supplements need no pre-market approval. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), which is part of the Food and Cosmetics Act, only ingredients not marketed in the US before October 1994 must be approved by FDA before use in consumer products.

Thus, as it stands, pre-market regulation of nanotechnology in dietary supplements does not fall under FDA’s regulatory umbrella, nor – according to Taylor – can it fit into the agency’s budget.

But Taylor points out in the report that the FDA is restricted in what it can do due to a dire lack of funding under the current administration. In order to continue activities mandated in 1996, FDA’s 2006 budget would have to increase by 49 percent, according to Taylor, and under President Bush’s 2007 FDA budget this funding gap will grow to 56 percent.

“But FDA’s lack of ‘nano-readiness’ is about more than dollars,” said Taylor.

“Business and health leaders alike should join in ensuring that FDA has the scientific tools and knowledge it needs to say ‘yes’ to safe and effective new products,” said Taylor.

The market stands to benefit from nanotechnology and therefore also stands to lose a lot, according to Taylor, if it is not thoroughly regulated.

In 2005, nanotechnology was incorporated into more than $30bn in manufactured goods, according to Lux Research, almost double the previous year. The market analyst projects that by 2014, 15 percent of all global manufactured goods will incorporate nanotechnology.

The Washington, DC-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars initiated its project on emerging nanotechnologies in 2005 with the aim of helping business, government and the public manage possible implications of the technology.

FDA’s nanotechnology public meeting will take place October 10, 2006 in Bethesda, Maryland.

According to FDA, the purpose of the meeting is to help the agency in its understanding of developments in nanotechnology materials relating to FDA-regulated products.

“FDA is interested in learning about the kinds of new nanotechnology material products under development in the areas of foods (including dietary supplements), food and color additives, animal feeds, cosmetics, drugs and biologics, and medical devices…” states an online FDA notice for the upcoming meeting.


Nanotechnology Risks Unknown
Insufficient Attention Paid to Potential Dangers, Report Says
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; Page A12

The United States is the world leader in nanotechnology — the newly blossoming science of making incredibly small materials and devices — but is not paying enough attention to the environmental, health and safety risks posed by nanoscale products, says a report released yesterday by the independent National Research Council.

If federal officials, business leaders and others do not devise a plan to fill the gaps in their knowledge of nanotech safety, the report warns, the field’s great promise could evaporate in a cloud of public mistrust.

“There is some evidence that engineered nanoparticles can have adverse effects on the health of laboratory animals,” the congressionally mandated report said, echoing concerns raised by others at a House hearing last week. Until the risks are better understood, “it is prudent to employ some precautionary measures to protect the health and safety of workers, the public, and the environment.”

The 176-page report, “A Matter of Size,” was prepared under the auspices of the National Academies, chartered to advise Congress on matters of science. It focuses on the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which coordinates and prioritizes federal research in nanotechnology — the fledgling but potentially revolutionary science that deals with materials as small as a billionth of a meter.

At that size, even conventional substances behave in unconventional ways. Some materials that do not conduct electricity or are fragile, for example, are excellent conductors and are extremely strong when made small enough. But nanoparticles can also enter human cells and trigger chemical reactions in soil, interfering with biological and ecological processes.

The report concludes that the U.S. research effort is vibrant and almost certainly the strongest in the world, though a few other countries are close behind. Among the more important unmet needs, it says, is stronger collaboration with the departments of Education and Labor to boost the supply of scientists and technicians with the skills the sector needs.

The report’s concerns about the lack of a federal focus on nanotech health and safety were foreshadowed at a House Science Committee hearing Thursday at which Republicans and Democrats alike took the Bush administration to task over the lack of a plan to learn more about nanotech’s risks.

Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) accused the administration of “sauntering” toward solutions “at a time when a sense of urgency is required.”

Ranking Democrat Bart Gordon (Tenn.) went further, calling the administration’s latest summary of nanotech research needs, released at the hearing, “a very juvenile piece of work.”

Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, funded in part by the Smithsonian Institution, said the government is spending about $11 million a year on nanotechnology’s potential harms when industry and environmental groups have jointly called for at least $50 million to $100 million a year. Equally important, Maynard said, is the need for a coordinated strategy to spend that money wisely.

About 300 consumer products already contain nanoscale ingredients, Maynard said, including several foods and many cosmetics, with little or no research to document their safety.

The industry is expected to be worth about $2 trillion by 2014.

Norris Alderson, associate commissioner for science at the Food and Drug Administration and chairman of the working group that created the administration’s summary research plan presented to Congress last week, said the document — which was supposed to be delivered six months ago — was meant as “a first step.” Asked by Boehlert if he understood that much more is expected of him and his working group, Alderson responded:

“I think your message is loud and clear.”

Source