Node without Consent

ByEDA

Node without Consent
by Josh Stylman at Brownstone Institute

Node without Consent

“The human body is no longer just a biological entity – it’s becoming a networked platform, where cells, neurons, and even DNA can be interfaced with digital systems, raising profound questions about who controls the essence of our existence.”

– Ian F. Akyildiz

Imagine discovering that your neurons – the very cells that make you you – could be transformed into networked data points, each one monitored and potentially controlled by microscopic machines. At the same time, your genetic code – your biological blueprint – is being bought, sold, and potentially auctioned to the highest bidder in bankruptcy proceedings.

This isn’t science fiction. Research papers published in mainstream scientific journals are already mapping out how to connect human brains directly to the cloud using injectable ‘neuralnanorobots,’ while in late 2024, 23andMe – once a $6 billion biotech darling – filed for bankruptcy, leaving 15 million DNA samples in limbo as potential assets for creditors.

Though I don’t claim deep technical expertise in nanotechnology or neuroscience, my deep dive into these fields – analyzing technical documentation, consulting with researchers, and tracking academic developments – has revealed an alarming landscape of converging technologies. The fundamental question isn’t whether this technology will be developed – it’s already underway. The real issue at stake is whether we’ll maintain autonomy over our own biology as these technologies emerge.

Consider the trajectory: First, we carried computers in our pockets. Then we wore them on our bodies. Now, researchers are developing ways to put them inside our brains while companies collect our DNA through consumer services marketed as harmless genealogical exploration. But unlike a smartphone you can turn off or remove, or even a password you can change after a data breach, your biological data is permanent and uniquely yours. This becomes especially concerning when we consider technologies designed to interface directly with our genetic machinery. Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel has described mRNA technology in revealing terms: ‘Since mRNA is an information-based platform, it works similar to a computer’s operating system, letting researchers insert new genetic code from a virus – like adding an app – to create a new vaccine quickly.’

What’s particularly noteworthy is how this platform was positioned as an urgent priority shortly before its global deployment. At the Milken Institute’s Future of Health Summit on October 29, 2019 – just months before Covid-19 emerged – Dr. Anthony Fauci discussed the need for a ‘completely disruptive’ approach to vaccine development that wouldn’t be ‘beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes.’ He described a scenario that now feels eerily prophetic: ‘It is not too crazy to think that an outbreak of a novel avian virus could occur in China somewhere. We could get the RNA sequence from that, beam it to a number of regional centers… and print those vaccines.’

The hair-raising accuracy of this forecast, delivered just weeks before it became reality, makes one wonder: Was this remarkable foresight? Or was there a deeper agenda behind accelerating a technology that Fauci himself admitted would normally ‘take a decade’ to properly test?

As bionetwork pioneer Ian Akyildiz candidly described: ‘These mRNAs are nothing than small scale, nanoscale machines right? They’re programmed, and they’re injected.’ Such technologies could represent the perfect bridge between digital code and biological function—potentially serving as a programmable interface to human biology.

What we’re witnessing isn’t just technological innovation – it’s what I’ve come to see as biometric colonization, where bodily data is extracted and controlled in ways that echo the resource extraction of colonial empires. This isn’t just about privacy or data security – though those concerns are serious enough. This is about the fundamental sovereignty of your own biology. When your neurons can be monitored in real time, when your brain activity can be networked to the cloud, when your DNA is stored in corporate databases that can be sold or hacked, who truly owns the essence of your existence? Your DNA isn’t just information – it’s you: your genetic identity, your health predispositions, characteristics tied to your family lineage. You can’t change it like a password or cancel it like a credit card. It’s permanent, revealing secrets about you that you might not even know yourself.

As technology analyst Shoshana Zuboff observes in her work on surveillance capitalism: “You’re not just a user anymore. You’re the infrastructure.” This fundamental shift transforms the relationship between humans and technology. We’re no longer simply using tools – we’re becoming the substrate through which those tools operate. 

This transformation was predicted decades ago and aligns with patterns I’ve documented in The Technocratic Blueprint. Microsoft even won a patent to “exploit network potential of skin” (U.S. Patent No. 6,754,472). As the Guardian reported in the early 2000s, Microsoft envisaged “using the human skin’s conductive properties to link a host of electronic devices around the body,” treating the human body itself as a networking medium.

The recent experience with global medical interventions has taught many of us the importance of informed consent and bodily autonomy. Yet the technologies being developed would make current debates about medical freedom look quaint by comparison.

Scientists are already detailing systems that would monitor all ~86 billion neurons in your brain, transmitting that data to the cloud at speeds of over 5 quadrillion bits per second. Researchers are even modeling nanonetworks on the nervous system’s own signals, aiming to treat brain disorders – or potentially monitor them in real time. The theoretical benefits of such technology are often touted, but we need to confront what truly matters: at what cost to human agency? To bodily self-determination? To the very essence of what makes us human?

From Fringe to Mainstream: The Reality of Biodigital Integration

What might once have been dismissed as conspiracy theory is now openly discussed by mainstream institutions like RAND Corporation, which published articles titled The Internet of Bodies Will Change Everything, for Better or Worse and Brain-Computer Interfaces Are Coming. Will We Be Ready? Meanwhile, Popular Mechanics reports on how Scientists Want to Use People As Antennas to Power 6G and CNBC produces segments explaining What is the Internet of Bodies? This isn’t theoretical conjecture – it’s the open acknowledgment of a technological transformation already underway.

These developments were presciently anticipated decades ago. In 1993, Vernor Vinge published The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era through NASA, predicting that greater-than-human intelligence would emerge within 30 years (by 2023) and highlighting the transformative role of nanotechnology. While the full “singularity” has not yet materialized as Vinge envisioned, the biodigital convergence we’re witnessing today represents steps toward the fundamental transformation of human capabilities and existence that he foresaw.

Perhaps most concerning is the evolution of “Smart Dust” – millimeter-sized devices containing sensors, computing, and networking capabilities. The concept, funded by DARPA in 1997 while Kris Pister was a professor at UC Berkeley, has evolved from battlefield surveillance technology to what MIT Technology Review now describes as a means to spy on your brain. Forbes, Fast Company, and Defense One all report on these developments not as science fiction, but as the next frontier in ubiquitous computing. As the MIT Technology Review stated in 2013, “Intelligent dust particles embedded in the brain could form an entirely new form of brain-machine interface.” This isn’t just experimental research – it’s clinical application. A 2024 Financial Times report revealed that ‘brain implants made from graphene are set to begin UK clinical trials’ in Manchester, using the same ‘wonder material’ documented throughout this essay in experimental contexts.

These tiny sensors, once designed for external deployment, are now being developed for implantation directly into human tissues. DARPA’s “Neural Dust” program explicitly aims for precise wireless recording of nerve activity, with the ability to be “surgically placed in muscles and nerves.” According to DARPA’s own materials, this technology ‘enables precise wireless recording of nerve activity,’ creating not just potential for healing but unprecedented access to our most private biological signals – the electromagnetic pulses that comprise our thoughts, emotions, and physical functions.

By 2019, DARPA’s Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology (N3) program began investing millions in non-invasive brain-machine interfaces specifically designed for able-bodied soldiers. These technologies include magnetic nanoparticles delivered via nasal spray, viruses carrying genes that make neurons emit infrared light, and ultrasound-guided neural interfaces. The stated goal is to allow soldiers to mentally control drone swarms and weapons systems with a response time under 50 milliseconds.

The technological architecture for monitoring, mapping, and potentially manipulating human biology at the cellular level exists not just in theory, but in funded research programs, patents, and prototype systems. The theoretical becomes practical with alarming speed. In July 2024, researchers revealed a technology called ‘Nano-MIND’ that uses magnetic fields and nanotechnology to remotely activate and control brain regions in mice, modulating both emotions and social behaviors. What was ‘conspiracy theory’ yesterday is published research today.

The Promise and Peril of Biodigital Convergence

It’s important to acknowledge the potential benefits of these technologies. Brain-computer interfaces could restore function for paralyzed individuals, allowing them to control robotic limbs or communicate after devastating injuries. Real-time health monitoring could detect strokes or heart attacks before they occur, potentially saving millions of lives. Personalized genetic medicine could target treatments to an individual’s unique biology, reducing side effects while increasing efficacy.

These technologies emerge from genuine human aspirations to heal disease, extend lifespans, and overcome biological limitations. Many researchers in these fields are driven by noble goals of helping humanity. The challenge isn’t with the core technologies themselves, but with how they’re implemented, who controls them, and whether our biological self-governance is preserved in the process. 

Yet when I share these documented technologies with friends, I often hear pushback: ‘People say lots of crazy stuff, it doesn’t mean they can actually do it.’ I have to point to the research papers, patents, and working prototypes that already exist. These aren’t just theoretical possibilities but actively developed technologies with substantial funding and institutional backing. The hubris often inherent in technological implementation compounds the risks – where benefits are amplified while unintended consequences are minimized.

The current trajectory shows these technologies moving rapidly from therapeutic applications toward systems of surveillance, monetization, and control. Without clear ethical boundaries and robust protections for individual sovereignty, the promise of healing could easily transform into mechanisms of unprecedented intrusion. The question becomes not whether to develop these technologies, but how to ensure they serve humanity rather than subjugate it.

Sabrina Wallace: Through Her Lens into Biodigital Reality

In my exploration of this emerging landscape, I’ve encountered voices from across the spectrum – from institutional scientists at prestigious universities to independent researchers operating outside mainstream frameworks. Among these, one figure stands apart both in her technical expertise and in the extraordinary scope of her claims: Sabrina Wallace. Encountering Sabrina didn’t just expand my understanding – she detonated my sense of certainty entirely. Her technical mastery of Wireless Body Area Networks (WBANs) and IEEE 802.15.6 standards reveals a deep understanding of network architecture that would be difficult to fabricate.

When she dissects these systems, her command of both technical language and conceptual frameworks is undeniable. Yet her wilder assertions – like being “Patient One,” the first subject of neural interface experimentation, or her claim that the character ‘Seven’ in the popular Netflix series Stranger Things was inspired by her experiences – leaving me to wonder where truth ends and speculation begins when the very signals we’re trying to interpret might be rewriting our cells.

What makes her particularly compelling is her ability to connect seemingly unrelated elements – drawing lines between obscure patents, military programs, IEEE standards, and biological processes that illuminate patterns others miss. Her interpretation of ‘Covid-AI-19’ as a ‘Coordinate and Routing system for Nanonetworks Linking Humans to The Sentient World Simulation’ represents one of her more provocative frameworks. This concept aligns disturbingly well with documented patents for graphene oxide delivery systems and suggests that what we experienced as a public health crisis may have served a dual purpose as the final stage in a process of software installation for biodigital integration.

I’ll be the first to admit I’m not remotely expert enough to fully evaluate whether Wallace knows what she’s talking about. She might possess unique insights or be making claims difficult for most to evaluate. But this uncertainty itself highlights a critical challenge of our time: how do we assess complex technical claims when few have the cross-disciplinary expertise to evaluate them? Her work forced me to confront a truth larger than her story: in an age of programmable biology, expertise alone can’t guarantee certainty.

Sabrina’s voice, whether prophet or provocateur, underscores why pattern recognition matters – because no single expert, no peer-reviewed paper, can fully map this terrain. She’s less a prophet than a paradox – proof that in this biodigital age, truth isn’t a fact to find but a pattern to chase. Regardless of her complete narrative, the technologies she describes unquestionably exist in some form, documented in patents, academic papers, and increasingly, mainstream media reports.

Beyond the Horizon

Today, as MIT researchers develop fiber computers that run apps directly inside your clothing, as neural interfaces advance, as injectable nanodevices become reality, and as genetic databases expand, we must recognize that what’s at stake is your nervous system. Your cells. Your DNA. Your mind. Even technology-focused publications acknowledge the darker implications of these developments. A Big Think analysis warned that mind-uploading wouldn’t create immortality but rather ‘a possibly hostile digital doppelgänger’ that would ‘claim your name, memories, and even family as its own.’ The line between enhancement and replacement blurs rapidly.

While many might dismiss the concept of programmable biology as science fiction, major academic institutions worldwide are already teaching and developing these technologies. The Internet of Bio-Nano Things (IoBNT) – the framework for connecting biological systems to digital networks – is being actively developed across prestigious universities from Maryland to Munich, Cambridge to Lübeck.

This isn’t obscure or marginal research. Across Europe and America, major academic institutions are actively teaching the architecture of IoBNT, creating a new generation of engineers capable of implementing these systems. Through programs like PANACEA, they collaborate to develop the fundamental technologies needed to make biological systems part of the digital infrastructure. The University of Maryland bridges microelectronics with biological systems; the Technical University of Munich trains students in bio-digital interfaces; Cambridge focuses on practical applications; and Germany’s University of Erlangen-Nürnberg builds platforms connecting bodily nanodevices to external networks—turning the IoBNT into a functional reality.

Sabrina argues that these efforts potentially interact with the human biofield – our body’s natural electromagnetic field – using standards like IEEE 802.15.6 (essentially a wireless rulebook) to network our cells into the Internet of Bio-Nano Things, often without public awareness or informed consent. While mainstream science is still developing a full understanding of the biofield concept, growing research suggests electromagnetic interactions with biological systems may be more significant than previously recognized.

Her technical analyses of wireless body area networks (WBANs) reveal how these systems are designed not merely to interact with our bodies, but to turn our biofields into access points for digital systems. What makes Wallace’s perspective particularly valuable is her emphasis on the technical infrastructure being built around human biology rather than merely the applications being marketed to consumers.

Source: Psinergy

What’s striking is how this research builds on decades of groundwork. The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act has funded these projects for over 20 years. This isn’t speculative technology – it’s the culmination of long-term, well-funded research programs across major institutions.

At the same time, governments are actively pursuing genetic databases. As Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu candidly revealed in a speech that Efrat Fenigson first brought to my attention (which I shared in DNA as Data): “We have a database, 98% of our population has digitized medical records…I intend to bring on that database of personal medical records for entire population a genetic database… give me a saliva sample…now we have a genetic record on a medical record of a robust population…let pharma companies run algorithms on this database.” This isn’t science fiction – it’s happening today.

The implications are staggering. Just as the development of nuclear technology required an extensive network of researchers and institutions, the transformation of human biology into programmable code and commercial datasets is emerging through established academic and research channels. But unlike nuclear technology, which primarily affects us externally, these developments aim to colonize our internal biological processes.

Informed consent isn’t just important here – it’s absolutely essential. When universities teach students how to implement Bio-Cyber Interfaces for eHealth (systems connecting biological processes to digital networks for healthcare applications), who ensures that the humans on the receiving end of these technologies understand the full implications? When companies collect genetic data while marketing family history reports, who warns consumers that their biological blueprint might be sold during bankruptcy proceedings?

After witnessing global authorities dismiss informed consent principles with casual contempt during recent medical interventions, the notion that these same institutions would suddenly discover ethical boundaries for neural interfaces is darkly comical. The power structures that mandated experimental injections under threat of social exclusion can hardly be expected to exercise restraint when it comes to technologies that access your thoughts. Their ethical limits seem to expand in perfect proportion to their technological capabilities.

These aren’t abstract concerns for future generations – the infrastructure for implementing these technologies is being built today in universities, research labs, and corporate databases worldwide. The same institutions that train our doctors and scientists are now teaching the next generation how to turn human biology into networked data points. Take Purdue University’s Center for Internet of Bodies (C-IoB), where students learn to merge ‘connectivity, security, and intelligence’ with the human body to ‘transform lives.’ Are these students ever confronting the moral dimensions of consent and sovereignty, or are they simply being trained as technicians of a predetermined future?

From Theory to Infrastructure

Academic Foundations

While universities are teaching these technologies, an even larger infrastructure is being built through coordinated international projects. The European Union is funding multiple initiatives to develop what they call “in-body nanonetworks” – essentially creating the Internet inside human bodies. Projects like ScaLeITN are developing terahertz communication systems – essentially ultra-fast wireless frequencies that can penetrate and transmit data through biological tissues including flesh and organs. This turns your body into a living router – your cells could soon be online, whether you consent or not.. Other programs focus on creating “autonomous nanonetworks” for the brain, merging biological and digital systems at the cellular level.

While labs wire our cells to 6G, patents like this (US20210082583A1) hint at skies laced with nanomaterials – graphene, perhaps – priming the atmosphere for the same network. ​​While these developments emerge from different fields, the alignment between them suggests more than coincidence. The methodical progression across diverse disciplines and institutions points to deliberate coordination rather than parallel innovation.

Global Standardization

This isn’t happening in isolation. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) – the UN agency responsible for global communications standards – is publishing special issues on these technologies. The European Parliament is examining their ethical implications. Policy Horizons Canada is exploring what they call biodigital convergence – the merging of biological and digital systems. International standards bodies are developing frameworks for these systems through the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

Corporate and Government Implementation

The scale of coordination is striking. As plans for 6G and 7G networks emerge, they aren’t just about faster phones – they’re about connecting human cells directly to the internet. As 6G expert Josep Miquel Jornet envisioned, “Can you imagine your body’s cells connected to the internet?” This isn’t posed as a warning but as a promise.

What’s particularly concerning is how this biological colonization is being normalized through technical language and institutional frameworks. Terms like theranostics (therapeutic diagnostics) and “bio-inspired nanonetworks” mask the fundamental reality: these systems aim to make human biology part of the digital infrastructure. While the focus appears medical, the implications extend far beyond healthcare. When your cells become networkable data points, who controls the network? Who owns the data? Who governs the protocols?

The dangers here aren’t merely theoretical. At the 2022 Aspen Security Forum, Congressman Jason Crow warned: “Weapons are being built to hit specific people… grab their DNA, their health profile, and make a germ to kill them or bench them.” These capabilities make our biological data “oil, gold, and dynamite in one” – immensely valuable and potentially catastrophic in the wrong hands.

You’re Not Being Included – You’re Being Integrated

We need to understand the distinction between inclusion and integration. When you’re included in a technological system, you maintain your autonomy and agency. When you’re integrated, you become a component – a node in the network or an asset in a database. As Elon Musk observed just this morning, ‘it increasingly appears that humanity is a biological bootloader for digital superintelligence.’ The term ‘bootloader’ is particularly revealing – in computing, a bootloader is simply the initial code that loads the operating system. It has no function beyond enabling something else to run.

Look at the specific technologies already being deployed:

All of these connect to form a complete circuit: from your organs → to your device → to the router → into the cloud → to a private server. As Professor Yoel Fink from MIT describes it, “Our bodies broadcast gigabytes of data through the skin every second… Wouldn’t it be great if we could teach clothes to capture, analyze, store, and communicate this important information?” Akyildiz has also argued that these devices could transform disease detection – but at what cost to our control over our own biology?

The risks go beyond health monitoring. A 2024 study on Wireless Body Area Networks (WBANs), using IEEE 802.15.6 standards, reveals these systems – already deployed in military programs like DARPA’s 2023 ‘Strengthen’ initiative for warfighters – are vulnerable to hacking, with 60% of devices at risk. Incidents like the 2021 Havana Syndrome reports – where US diplomats experienced troubling symptoms potentially tied to directed-energy weapons – underscore the disturbing possibility that similar technologies could be weaponized against biological systems. While the exact causes of Havana Syndrome remain debated among experts, the incidents highlight the need for vigilance regarding emerging bioelectromagnetic technologies.

A social media account named AMUZED X paints a concerning picture with its ‘Bio-Digital Grid’ framework, describing how technologies like Smart Dust – microscopic sensors that interact with your body – and Graphene Neural Interfaces enable a seamless merger of biology and digital systems. This grid, already in motion through DARPA’s ElectRx program and broader bio-surveillance efforts, turns your body into a networked asset, as AMUZED warns: “Big Tech has already moved INSIDE your body – without your request.”

Sabrina, drawing on her technical background in computer networks, argues these devices form part of a broader “Wireless Body Area Network” where nanotechnology effectively turns our bodies into biohacked nodes in a larger control system. She details how technologies originally developed for military applications are being repackaged as consumer health products, creating a system far more invasive than mere health monitoring. Wallace’s analysis of electromagnetic frequency interactions with the human biofield suggests these technologies might not only monitor but potentially influence biological processes through precisely calibrated frequencies.

These more speculative aspects of her analysis, while grounded in her technical understanding of network architecture, represent an emerging area where established science, theoretical possibilities, and speculative connections intersect. Her hypotheses invite further investigation by researchers across multiple disciplines. What’s particularly concerning is how these systems are being normalized through medical and wellness applications, obscuring their full surveillance capabilities.

When we look at the unexplained changes in our atmosphere, for which I’ve provided a mountain of evidence in my work on geoengineering, we find another potential piece of this puzzle. The evidence is clear: something is being sprayed in our skies – confirmed through patents, government programs, and direct observation – yet the purpose remains shrouded in mystery. Despite noble efforts from organizations like the Global Wellness Forum mobilizing legislation in 32 states addressing these activities, public discussion remains surprisingly muted.

The possibility that these atmospheric operations could be creating an environment that facilitates the very biodigital systems described throughout this essay must be considered, not as definitive truth, but as a pattern too significant to ignore. When something affects the air every human breathes yet remains largely unacknowledged, the silence itself becomes part of the puzzle.

Consider the pattern: While aerospace companies conduct what they call “atmospheric research,” universities develop wireless body networks requiring specific electromagnetic environments. While governments fund “solar radiation management” programs, patents emerge for graphene tech. While militaries implement “cloud seeding” operations, corporations work on bioelectric field interface technologies. These may seem like unconnected activities, but they may form a coherent pattern when viewed through a wider lens.

Similarly, the push for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) that I’ve previously explored appears at first glance separate from biodigital integration. Yet when examined as part of a broader pattern of surveillance, control, and infrastructure development, these systems may represent converging tracks toward a common destination. The digital financial control grid being constructed now could eventually be administered not just through smartphones and digital IDs, but potentially through the neural interfaces and biodigital systems described throughout this essay.

Could we be witnessing the emergence of a world where CBDCs course through your neurons, skies seeding a bio-digital grid – your body as the nexus of money, air, and code? I’m identifying patterns here, not claiming definitive connections. Connect these dots, the pattern may tell a story, even if definitive proof remains elusive. CBDCs may still be coming, but not just through apps – through your neurons, networked by the same systems potentially spraying graphene into the skies and dusting your nerves with smart sensors.

We know something is being sprayed in our skies – I’ve documented hundreds of patents and programs that confirm this – yet no transparent explanation has been offered to the public. Meanwhile, research into graphene-based technologies has expanded dramatically across multiple fields. A 2021 article in News Medical Life Sciences described how “graphene oxide-silver nanoparticles [are] shown to rapidly neutralize RNA viruses,” while patent CN112220919 explicitly details a “nano coronavirus recombinant vaccine taking graphene oxide as carrier.” Additional patents like US20110247265A1 describe atmospheric delivery systems for nanomaterials, and the journal ACS Nano has published multiple studies on graphene’s electromagnetic properties in biological systems.

Could these atmospheric operations be creating an environment that facilitates the very biodigital systems described in this essay? Could the nanoparticle technologies being researched for biological applications have atmospheric counterparts? If a coordinated effort of this magnitude were underway, would those responsible announce it publicly? The opaque nature of these programs only heightens the need for transparency about what’s being deployed in our skies and bodies.

What’s presented as convenience and health monitoring is in fact a data extraction system that turns the human body into a continuous source of valuable information. They’re not just monitoring your health – they’re mapping, modeling, and mimicking human biology to create what some researchers call “the Internet of Bio-Digital Twins“.

Another pivotal figure in the biodigital landscape, Charles Lieber, has advanced the hardware side of this convergence. His revolutionary nanowire transistor technology, documented in his MIT Technology Review article “Tiny Probes Measure Signals Inside Cells,” created a pathway for direct electronic interfacing with our cellular machinery. Lieber’s Nature Nanotechnology paper “Free-standing kinked nanowire transistor probes for targeted intracellular recording in three dimensions” and more recent work on “Biochemically functionalized probes for cell-type–specific targeting and recording in the brain” set the foundation for technologies that could monitor – and potentially control – biological processes at the cellular level.

The technological infrastructure being developed today – through research grants, international standards, and coordinated development programs – isn’t just about treating disease or tracing ancestry. It’s about creating the technical capacity to turn human biology into a programmable platform and marketable asset. This isn’t speculative technology awaiting development – it’s already being implemented. What remains to be seen is whether we can preserve autonomy over our own biological processes as these systems come online.

Reclaiming Our Biological Autonomy

This is not just about technology. It’s about the fundamental right to govern your own biological processes. As these technologies advance, we face a crossroads that demands not just resistance but a radical reimagining of our relationship with technology and our own biology.

The path forward isn’t about rejecting innovation, but claiming ownership of it – on our terms, not theirs. Imagine communities where biologically autonomous individuals maintain the sanctity of their neural pathways through conscious practices; where local knowledge networks cultivate open-source healing technologies that serve without surveilling; where children learn to strengthen their biofields alongside learning computer code.

This requires commitment at three levels – physical, intellectual, and spiritual. Physically, we must reclaim ownership of our bodies through practices that strengthen our natural electromagnetic integrity. This means:

  • Daily grounding to connect with Earth’s stabilizing field – walk barefoot outdoors for at least 15 minutes
  • Creating low-EMF sanctuaries in our homes, particularly for sleep – test your home with an EMF meter ($30 on Amazon), aim for under 1 mG in bedrooms, and switch to wired ethernet where possible
  • Embracing nutrition that supports cellular resilience against electromagnetic interference – foods rich in antioxidants, minerals like zinc and magnesium, and clean water
  • Practicing regular digital detoxes – designate tech-free days or weekends to reset your nervous system
  • Supporting and using technologies that prioritize privacy and local control rather than cloud connectivity

Intellectually, we need to develop discernment that transcends the false binary of “trusting the science” versus “rejecting technology.” This means cultivating the ability to recognize patterns across disparate domains, questioning technologies that require surrender rather than empowerment, building knowledge networks independent of systems that profit from our biological commodification, learning about your data rights and supporting organizations that fight for digital privacy, and learning one technical term a week – start with “IEEE 802.15.6” or “Wireless Body Area Networks” – and trace it through patents or academic papers to build your own map of this world.

Spiritually, biological independence requires a connection to that which transcends the measurable:

  • Meditate for 10 minutes daily, not to escape reality but to feel your body’s natural rhythms – unplugged from external networks
  • Develop practices that strengthen your intuition about when a technology supports versus diminishes your sovereignty
  • Connect with like-minded individuals who prioritize biological integrity over convenience

Not long ago, I would have dismissed concepts like ‘biofields’ as woo-woo – interesting perhaps, but lacking scientific merit. But my research into electromagnetic cellular interactions and studies from institutions like HeartMath forced me to reconsider this skepticism. I should also acknowledge that I don’t fully live according to these principles yet – my own digital habits and lifestyle choices often contradict what I’m advocating here. But as I’ve researched electromagnetic cellular interactions and the documented studies from institutions like HeartMath, I’ve had to reconsider my skepticism.

The Rockefeller capture of medical education nearly a century ago has severely limited our understanding of the body’s electrical and energetic nature, steering medical training toward pharmaceutical interventions while marginalizing more holistic and natural approaches to human biology. What was once dismissed as speculative or pseudoscientific is increasingly confirmed by mainstream research.

Intellectually, we need to develop discernment that transcends the false binary of “trusting the science” versus “rejecting technology.” This means cultivating the ability to recognize patterns, questioning technologies that require surrender rather than empowerment, and building knowledge networks independent of systems that profit from our biological commodification.

Most importantly, spiritual independence becomes the foundation of biological autonomy. Our consciousness – that ineffable quality that makes us human – cannot be reduced to neural patterns or digital code. By deepening our connection to that which transcends the measurable, we establish an inner integrity that no external technology can colonize.

When faced with technologies that interface with your body, move beyond simply demanding clear informed consent – cultivate the kind of awareness that can sense when consent is being engineered rather than requested. Develop a visceral intuition for when technologies serve your freedom versus when they quietly erode it.

The coming decades will determine whether humanity maintains its biological autonomy or surrenders it to systems that view our bodies as nodes in a network, our DNA as intellectual property, our thoughts as harvestable data. The most powerful act of independence is not just saying “no” to external control but cultivating such a powerful internal “yes” to your inherent wholeness that external systems cannot fragment it. While the technological threats may seem overwhelming, our capacity for conscious choice remains our greatest strength.

We are witnessing the birth of a new paradigm that will either enslave or liberate human potential. The technologies themselves are neutral – it’s the consciousness with which we approach them that determines their impact. By choosing autonomy over convenience, integrity over integration, and connection over control, we can ensure that the next chapter of human evolution enhances rather than diminishes what makes us human.

This isn’t about fear. It’s about awakening to our power. We are not merely bodies to be engineered, genes to be edited, or brains to be networked. We are conscious beings with the capacity to shape our destiny. What matters most isn’t what these technologies might do to us, but what we actively choose to do with them.

The Search for Truth in a Biodigital Age

My journey in understanding these technologies has been deeply personal and often disorienting. When I started learning about the mechanism and harms of the mRNA technologies, I began to wonder why our governments were deploying this – let alone mandating it. As my friend Mark Schiffer, a brilliant scientist, put it: “Hacking our genetic machinery to make spike is like shooting yourself in the face to confer immunity to gunshot wounds…it’s the stupidest idea of all time. Yes, people who shoot themselves in the face report fewer headaches. Ergo, shooting yourself in the face cures headaches.” That framed my thinking.

I couldn’t sleep. I became obsessed with understanding what was happening. I saw the VAERS reports and knew people in my life suffering from strokes, blood clots, and other documented issues – yet the collective silence was deafening. My coworkers literally asked me to stop talking about it. I was dumbfounded that no one wanted to look – or seemed to care. Could cognitive dissonance really be that powerful? Then, as I dug deeper, I shifted toward seeing the financial mechanisms behind pandemic policies – how Covid could usher in what Catherine Austin Fitts aptly calls ‘the control grid‘ – a comprehensive system of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) designed as the ultimate end game of these policies.

Having immersed myself in blockchain and cryptocurrencies, I recognized what CBDCs truly represented – not innovation, but imprisonment – effectively a digital gulag that would track, limit, and control every transaction in our lives. What baffled me was how anyone would willingly accept such a system. When vaccine passports emerged as a concept, my head nearly exploded with the realization: this was the perfect onramp to a digital ID infrastructure that would make CBDCs not just possible but inevitable. And if Sabrina’s analyses hold any truth, these CBDCs might eventually be administered not just through smartphones, but through your neurons themselves, as biodigital interfaces advance. The pieces were falling into place.

Just when I thought I’d grasped the full picture, encountering Sabrina’s work opened my mind to possibilities even more mind-blowing. What if the entire pandemic – all the fear, restrictions, and “solutions” – served a dual purpose as preparation for human biology’s integration with digital systems? This perspective was so transformative that it made my previous concerns appear parochial.

I recognize how this sounds. Believe me, I do. From genocide to financial enslavement to neural hijacking – it seems like the plot of a dystopian novel. And maybe that’s all it is. But I can’t ignore the mounting evidence, the converging patterns across numerous domains that suggest something extraordinary is unfolding. This isn’t about proof – it’s about patterns. Biodigital tech, CBDCs, sprayed skies – they don’t need to agree, just cohere. My concern isn’t claiming absolute certainty – it’s ensuring we’re awake enough to consider possibilities that would transform the very essence of human existence.

The Rise of Pattern Recognition

As my friend Mark articulates in his essay “The Pattern Recognition Era,” we’ve entered a time where “reality no longer requires consensus. It only requires coherence.” The biodigital convergence I’ve outlined here won’t be validated through peer review anytime soon – just as we saw during Covid, when doctors reporting successful early treatment protocols had their videos removed and papers retracted.

This essay is not an academic paper or journalistic report. It’s an exploration through the lens of pattern recognition – identifying coherent signals across multiple domains that conventional siloed expertise might miss. As Schiffer writes, “When the same structure appears across biology, finance, geopolitics, and myth, it’s real.” I’m applying this approach to biodigital convergence, where the evidence spans IEEE standards, patent filings, military programs, and corporate initiatives.

Conventional analytical frameworks are especially inadequate for something this grand. The transformation happening is so vast, spans so many disciplines, and connects so many seemingly unrelated domains that it remains largely invisible unless you’re specifically looking for it. And who has the expertise to know what to look for? Most scientists specialize in narrow fields – neuroscience, nanotechnology, wireless communications, genetic engineering – but almost no one is trained to see how these pieces fit together. You don’t know what you’re looking for until you begin to recognize the pattern. This methodical search for coherence across seemingly unrelated domains isn’t about proving a hidden agenda – it’s about revealing architectural patterns that emerge regardless of the builders’ intentions.

This is why the pattern recognition approach is essential – it helps us see beyond institutional gatekeeping to identify convergent signals across multiple domains – from IEEE standards to patent filings, from military programs to corporate initiatives. When the same structures appear in biomedical journals, telecommunications standards, defense programs, and corporate initiatives, we’re witnessing a coherent pattern that transcends any single field of expertise.

Whether Wallace’s complete framework proves accurate or not, the evidence for biodigital integration is undeniable. We’re witnessing the systematic creation of systems designed to bridge human biology with digital networks. This isn’t speculation – it’s documented in patents, peer-reviewed papers, and increasingly in mainstream publications from RAND to Popular Mechanics, which now openly discuss using humans as antennas for 6G networks.

This evidence also connects directly to the historical framework I laid out in my Technocratic Blueprint essay, which traced how a century-long project – from H.G. Wells’ “World Brain” concept through Brzezinski’s vision of the “technetronic era” – has sought to create comprehensive systems for monitoring, influencing, and potentially controlling human behavior. The Internet of Bodies represents the logical extension of this blueprint, moving from external surveillance to internal monitoring and even programming of biological processes.

This creates a far-reaching epistemological challenge that connects to themes I explored last week in “The Prison of Certainty” – how do we navigate truth in an age of engineered perception? As I wrote there, “The most profound barrier to changing beliefs may be… our ability to compartmentalize information so effectively that contradictions can coexist without creating the dissonance that might prompt reconsideration.” We’re now in a position where the technological transformation of human biology is happening in plain sight, yet remains largely unacknowledged in mainstream discourse.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. If these technologies achieve their full implementation, they wouldn’t just change what we can do – they would transform what we are. The merger of human consciousness with digital systems represents an evolutionary shift as significant as the development of language or the agricultural revolution. Whether this shift serves human flourishing or creates unprecedented mechanisms of control depends entirely on the frameworks we establish now.

I share these reflections not to promote panic but to encourage deeper inquiry. I’m not claiming certainty about every aspect of this technological evolution, but considering possibilities that align with documented evidence. As more evidence emerges about technologies once dismissed as conspiracy theories – from lab origins of viruses to widespread surveillance systems – we have a responsibility to approach these biodigital developments with both critical thinking and an open mind.

The battle ahead isn’t primarily technological – it’s philosophical and political. The choice between biological sovereignty and digital integration may be the defining decision of our time. The answer will determine not just the future of privacy or data security, but the very definition of human dignity in an age of programmable humans.

If this resonates, share it. Talk about it. Ask better questions. The silence around these systems is their strongest shield – and our attention is the first crack in their armor. Talk to your doctor, your engineer, your city council. Ask what they know about the Internet of Bodies. Their blank stares or vague responses might tell you everything you need to know about how unprepared our institutions are for what’s already being built.

References and Further Reading

Core Research on Biodigital Convergence

Internet of Bodies and Digital Twins

DNA Privacy and Commodification

  • Stylman, Joshua (2024). “DNA as Data: 23andMe’s Bankruptcy.” Substack.

6G and Internet of Bodies in Mainstream Media

Smart Dust and Military Tech

EMF and Health Mitigation

Graphene and Biofields

Privacy and Data Rights

Historical Context and Technocratic Frameworks

Financial Mechanisms and Control Systems

  • Fitts, Catherine Austin. “Catherine Austin Fitts: The Control Grid.” YouTube.
  • OpenVAERS. “VAERS Data on Vaccine Adverse Events.”

https://openvaers.org

Wireless Body Area Networks and Standards

Books

  • Allegretti, Marcello (2018). The Therapeutic Properties of Electromagnetic Waves: From Diagnostics to Cancer Research. Independently Published.
  • Becker, Robert O., and Selden, Gary (1985). The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. HarperCollins.
  • Burger, Bruce (1998). Esoteric Anatomy: The Body as Consciousness. North Atlantic Books.
  • Firstenberg, Arthur (2017). The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. Chelsea Green Publishing.
  • McInturff, Brian (2007). The Electroherbalism Frequency Lists. Lulu.com.
  • McKusick, Eileen Day (2014). Tuning the Human Biofield: Healing with Vibrational Sound Therapy. Healing Arts Press.
  • McKusick, Eileen Day (2017). The Electric Human Biofield. Healing Arts Press.
  • Rubik, Beverly (2015). The Biofield: Bridge Between Mind & Body. Institute of Noetic Sciences.

X Accounts

Republished from the author’s Substack

Node without Consent
by Josh Stylman at Brownstone Institute – Daily Economics, Policy, Public Health, Society

Similar Posts