When coincidences outnumber differences, it’s either a method or a conspiracy. In the AIDS – Covid comparison, it’s both.

Our effort has already earned the YouTube Badge of Honor and Credibility, so you know this is hard-hitting

Let’s play a new game: Identify all the ‘coincidences’ between AIDS and Covid.
Here’s my incomplete list for starters:

  • No gold standard virus isolation from patients
  • Virus – illness causation not fully evidenced
  • Fauci runs the show
  • Poison sold for therapy results in genocide
  • Cases explode after therapy approval
  • Fauci promotes Gilead drugs and suppresses all other alternatives
  • Deliberate misuse of PCRs
  • Fake test and cases
  • Fauci brutally suppresses dissent
  • Fake stats and other mish-mashes in third world
  • They couldn’t do it without their friends in media and Pentagon
  • Strong political and economical incentives for Government participation
  • Genetic sequence changing all the time
  • No cure found, normalized, need permanent medication

I will probably add more with time, feel free to send me suggestions on my socials

Mengele was a baby compared to what Fauci achieved in any of these crises alone

I only mirror AIDS and COVID / AZT and Covid injections here, but rest assured they’ve made many more trials and versions, these are just the most documented and obvious. So much documented I might follow up with one or two more episodes.
However, these first 40+ minutes suffice to support the claim in my headline and the case that trialing Fauci’s genocide has to start with AIDS, if not earlier.
But this video presentation is not all I have, I’ll keep adding below more of the bombshells I’ve dug out during my investigations.



To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

You thought Magnetogenetics are scary? Optogenetics are a similar thing, but using light instead of electromagnetism, non-invasive and non-detectable. Both stem from DARPA’s BRAIN Initiative.
And you may be able to avoid EMF radiation, but you can’t avoid light.


This actually touches on a wide array of concerns, from LEDs to vaccines, The Great Reset and the smart grid.
I am very confident that if you pay attention to this video presentation from start to end, you will spend one hour, but you will save incommensurably more hours of guessing, wondering and researching. Not just the many hours I spent doing this, but the many more hours I learned where to look for and how to connect things.
You’re still supposed to not take my word and do your own research, but this will give you some of the best tips on the topic.

Oh, so much wow! just hours after putting this out I find out they will be spraying us with viruses. Shocker!







Brain Control With Light: It’s Possible With Optogenetics

Lighting the Brain

Karl Deisseroth and the optogenetics breakthrough.

By John Colapinto, The New Yorker, May 11, 2015

By rendering individual neurons photosensitive Deisseroths technique brings a once unthinkable level of precision and...
By rendering individual neurons photosensitive, Deisseroth’s technique brings a once unthinkable level of precision and control to experiments designed to determine how the brain processes information and drives behavior.

DARPA Awards $21.6M to Develop Optogenetic ‘Read-Write’ Neural Interface

July 24, 2017, Biosciences

Ehud Isacoff of the Molecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging (MBIB) Division is the project lead on a $21.6 million grant awarded to UC Berkeley as part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA’s) Neural Engineering System Design program. The team led by Isacoff, director of the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute at UC Berkeley, aims to develop a novel brain-machine interface that uses light to monitor and modulate the activity of thousands to millions of individual neurons in the cerebral cortex.

To communicate with the brain, the team will first introduce a gene encoding a fluorescent protein into neurons, making the cells flash when they fire an action potential. This will be accompanied by a second gene encoding a light-activated protein that stimulates neurons in response to pulses of light. The reading device Isacoff’s group is developing is a miniaturized light field microscope, which captures light through an array of lenses and reconstructs images computationally in any depth of focus. For the writing component, they are developing a means to stimulate groups of neurons by projecting three-dimensional light patterns onto them.

The researchers’ goal during the initial four-year funding period is to create a prototype device using model organisms—such as zebrafish larvae and mice—in which neural activity and behavior can be simultaneously detected and controlled. But DARPA’s ultimate goal is to accelerate the development of biocompatible neural implants for use in humans to compensate for sensory deficits or to control prosthetic devices. Read more from the UC Berkeley News Center.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them


If you’re the kind of people who read this kind of websites, you should be aware of the fact that the US government has branded both of us as ‘terror threats’.
They have also branded skepticism and dissidence as ‘mental illnesses’ or ‘psychological disorders’ before.
Complying with their standards and wanting to show a collaborative side I’ve just discovered in myself, I’d like to rat on some organization that has caused tremendous damage and setbacks to ‘covid measures’.

Now, if anyone knows where I should file my report officially, please fax me the contacts!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them


Ok, everything they’ve done so far was plain retarded but this is some smart evil scheming. Not really original, they steal merits even from plumbing, but there’s finally some intellectual merits to this plan. Or former plan, because it’s not gonna work that well once everybody finds out.

When I said “real cure”, I have not abandoned the truth that Moronavirus exists only on computers, so it can’t have real cures other than ctrl+del.
But SARS-COV-2 manufacturers stole some real symptoms from real viruses and diseases.
Most of these are sensitive to a set of chemicals like the ones described below.
The fake virus would be much harder to prop without some of these real cases of other diseases. And successes against flu, let’s say, are sold as victories against the monstrous Covidzilla.

Also facts:

Most drugs are just botched lab copies of natural compounds.
Pfizer’s “twice-a-day Covid pill” is pretty much the same thing to Ivermectin.

Pfizer ad

Pfizer’s press-release on the pill.


“An In-silico data analysis conducted by Choudhury et al. demonstrated that Ivermectin efficiently utilizes viral spike protein, main protease, replicase, and human TMPRSS2 receptors as the most possible targets for executing its “antiviral efficiency” by disrupting binding. Since Ivermectin exploits protein targets from both, the virus and human, this could be the behind its excellent in vitro efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 “

The Journal of Antibiotics, June 15, 2021
they used the protease description instead of the name, I wonder if intentionally…

We identify hydroxychloroquine, a drug that already has approved uses in pregnancy, as a possible inhibitor of NS2B-NS3 protease by using a Food and Drug Administration-approved drug library, molecular docking, and molecular dynamics simulations. Further, to gain insight into its inhibitory potential toward NS2B-NS3 protease, we performed enzyme kinetic studies, which revealed that hydroxychloroquine inhibits protease activity with an inhibition constant (K i) of 92.34 ± 11.91 µM. Additionally, hydroxychloroquine significantly decreases Zika virus infection in placental cells.

Future Virology, March 25, 2021

The hypothesized scope for all these drugs and others is protease inhibition.

Our results indicate that boceprevir, ombitasvir, paritaprevir, tipranavir, ivermectin, and micafungin exhibited inhibitory effect towards 3CLpro enzymatic activity. The 100 ns molecular dynamics simulation studies showed that ivermectin may require homodimeric form of 3CLpro enzyme for its inhibitory activity. In summary, these molecules could be useful to develop highly specific therapeutically viable drugs to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 replication either alone or in combination with drugs specific for other SARS-CoV-2 viral targets.

Communications Biology, January 2021

Pfizer found a slightly different strategy to chemically sabotage the protease, there had to be something different to be able to patent it, but that’s like different knives to cut the same sushi, and the science is in where to cut and how deep. This is the actual breakthrough that Ivermectin inventors got a Nobel for, and Pfizer is just ripping it ready-made and tweaking it.
Take this to your fav fucked-checker!


It’s harder to steal an icecream cone from a toddler than to sell poison to grown-ups.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.

So, is this the world you guys plan to live in?
Nazis are babies next to covidiots and you might be next in line. Not to have my fate, but to have this poor man’s fate…

Poor people get ‘terminated’ by medical assassins, then their partners in crime terminate any witnesses and whistleblowers. This seems to be the new business and social model.
Our site is crippled again because YouTube terminated our second channel, without any possibility of appeal or anything. Ten minutes after the upload it was down.
Just please watch the 100 seconds that triggered the Googlag mass-murderers so much and think for yourself!

Sorry for the site being incomplete again, we’re too poor to afford enough server space and our host, WordPress, only embeds censored platforms, but most articles should hold even without the video support. Most videos are already backed up on Odysee, Brighteon and Bitchute, I just can’t embed them here.
We’re not done, just a bit hurt, but we’re exhausted of energy and resources, a lot is going out, very little coming in.
Most exhausting is, though, watching people still feeding and collaborating with their Nemesis.

BTW, if you’re new here, you’ll be amazed what you find if you input “youtube” in our ‘search’ box!

I still have some scattered back-ups and I’m going to make more and keep red-pilling YouTubers. Help, if you will, preaching only to the choir is not that efficient.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!

Did you even know that PCRs are used under the EUA too?
I called this a ‘PCRdemic’ in a meme last year and I’ve been proven right countless times.

A blast from a past pandemic

Let’s play dumb for a moment and pretend we believe SARS-COV-2 exists outside computers and human minds.

All Covid vaccine trials have shown is infinitesimally tiny decreases in symptoms for injected fools. To detect these tiny differences, they used the largely erroneous and unreliable non-tests known as PCR.
(They also ‘morphed’ some symptoms into adverse effects to get the needed numbers, but that’s another story).
If you can’t defend PCR tests, you can’t defend Covid injections.
And anyone with at least half a functional brain knows there’s nothing to defend, because there’s no such this as PCR Covid tests, there may be PCRs and SARS-COV-2 tests, as separate items only.
So these Covid injections trials and studies are worth precisely and exactly:
They are as null as all Covid stats, the whole Covid sham and anything based on PCRs as a diagnose tool or as a quantitative detector.
All approvals based on these trials and studies are null.
Up until today, officials have maintained that PCRs are “the gold-standard of Covid testing”, so it’s not wrong to extrapolate their accuracy to the whole Covidiocracy.

“According to a Johns Hopkins study, this so-called gold standard RT-PCR test can have a false negative up to 20 to 66 percent of the time in even symptomatic patients depending upon the test’s timing. False negatives can be up to 100 percent on day one of exposure (asymptomatic) and down to 20 percent on day 8 of exposure (day 3 of symptoms) and then starts going up again. Statistics tell us that the false-negative rate goes up even higher as the prevalence of disease goes up, as is the case with COVID right now. A meta-analysis from Europe actually found an average false negative of 54 percent. These numbers are actually from monitored and regulated studies where things are done more meticulously than real-world scenarios. Performing many of these tests quickly in the clinical setting because of soaring demand, with each test resulting in sampling error, pressure on labs to provide quick turnaround, and rationing of scarce reagents in labs increase this percentage even higher. Some mutations could be potentially affecting the accuracy as well.” – KevinMD
Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MDKevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

I say flipping the coin would achieve similar results as PCRs, I dare everyone to test this.
But even if its error margin was only about 8%, as Mayo Clinic claims, that’s still eight times bigger than the variations detected in Pfizer’s or Moderna’s lab humans.
Fact-check this! Plenty more resources on this very website and its extensions.
If self-evidence and logic are not your thing, I have two guys here who seem to agree, they’re kinda advised in this field:

Now, just to flex a bit, allow me to fact-check the fact-checker that made even NYT to retract one of their best and most honest articles since Covid, claiming as much as 90% of PCR positives may be false.

Healthfeedback.org claims ultrasensitivity in tests doesn’t matter because PCRs are not used quantitatively, just to detect presence, as they should. They admit that people who are not sick or not even infectious, people who were sick in the past (but not anymore) and people who might be sick in the future (but not yet), are considered cases, just because the tiniest viral load is detected:

Some outlets have even called these high Ct positive results “false positives”, which is inaccurate. The term “false positive” indicates that a person tested positive but does not have the disease[1]. However, the New York Times report makes it clear that a person is or has been infected if they test positive, regardless of whether the test had a high or low Ct value. This also means that it is appropriate to consider a person with a positive result and high Ct value as a COVID-19 case.
Therefore, the sensitivity of the PCR test is not responsible for the high number of cases in the U.S. Simply put, case numbers are high because there are many infected people. This indicates a high level of virus transmission in the community and public health measures, such as physical distancing and lockdowns, are effective and important for reducing the number of infections and protecting the community[2,3].
Apoorva Mandavilli, the journalist who wrote the New York Times article, also stressed this point in a Twitter thread, clarifying that “people who test positive but with high CTs *were* contagious, just at an earlier time point. They are not contagious *anymore*. Doesn’t mean they were never infected, so doesn’t affect the case count.”

As they accuse NYT of using straw man arguments, fact-checkers do precisely that, as per usual. We, the independent scholars and media, were the first to cry out PCRs are not a quantitative tool, the establishment never bothered to educate, we dug out PCR inventor Kari Mullis’ teachings, as early as last summer. So we are more aware even than NYT presstitutes, vocational press-release copy-pasters, and when we accuse hypersensitivity in tests, it’s mainly about QUALITATIVE sensitivity. What happens if a tiny viral fragment detected is MISIDENTIFIED, not just misquantized, because hypersensitivity or overcycling?

WHO already admitted it, the numbers of amplification cycles influence the qualitative sensitivity, that’s why they lowered the threshold on Biden’s inauguration day: this trash was detecting anything and everything the way it was used.

What happens if the test reacts to something we all normally live with, since our virome is comprised of countless millions of varieties and we’re also full of viral debris? Don’t you get the perfect pandemic? Besides toasting bread and burping, is there anything simpler to achieve?
How else would you get dozens of labs sending 100% positives like they did last year?!

Prof. David Rasnick PhD is a reputed researcher, a friend of Kari Mullis’ and one of the first to whistleblow on the AIDS hoax. A bit of a hero to me

Now back to vaccine trials:
They can’t afford lumping together past, present and potential future sick people, as PCRs do, the trials are supposed to measure present symptoms in currently ill people, past and future are beyond the scope.
To these trials, the quantitative aspect is crucially relevant, because it’s different in each category.
I hope it goes without saying that the correct identification of the virus is paramount, and, as the PCR inventor put it: “These things can find anything if you keep cycling”.
So, top authoritative sources, logic and life experience confirm:

PCRs need to be backed by proper lab analysis, they mean nothing by themselves.

Why do you think they burn bodies without autopsy? At the coroner is where the real testing happens, so they illegally destroy murder evidence.


I know, we need to enlarge our horizons, and by a lot, just to encompass how big the scam is… almost as large as the mass-mental-retardation pandemic sweeping the species with infinitely more casualties than any natural virus.
I know, it may be hard to flex that much, makes anyone dizzy, but if we’re not capable of doing it quickly and at mass-level, we are going to have a mass-level extinction instead.
But I also know I’d rather live to see a crowd-sourced investigation into Kari Mullis’ suspicious death just months ahead of the pandemic. It’s doable if we flex our horizon and brain more and more often.

It’s gonna be a Very Dark Winter and we need ‘flexi-brains’ to come out of it, among other skills.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them


Right off the bat:

  1. You can’t have a single product with two commercial names in the same place, at the same time. BionTech hasn’t been erased. So there are two Pfizer products: Comirnaty and Pfizer-BionTech.
  2. Until the vial content is independently audited, we can’t know the difference between the two, because this info has been redacted from the publicly available letters.
    But we know for sure there is one and it’s significant enough to earn a new commercial name.
  3. (After four updates that I had to erase to clarify and make this more readable)

    “BioNTech said it was developing four vaccine candidates under a programme named BNT162 with its partner, pharma giant Pfizer… BioNTech, which awarded the rights in China to BNT162 to Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical under a March collaboration deal…” – Reuters

    In its press release, Pfizer maintains:
    “The FDA-approved COMIRNATY® (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) and the EUA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably to provide the COVID-19 vaccination series. An individual may be offered either COMIRNATY® (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) or the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2.”

    In the same press release, we find out the Comirnaty concoct is scientifically identified as BNT162b2. Like the afore-mentioned program BNT162, version ‘b2’.
    It’s the same one as in the US EUA, so, officially, the EUA and the full approval (BLA) are awarded to the same formulation indeed, we can get that out of the way.

    However, the European EUA doesn’t mention any of the formulation, so we cannot know what they used there. A German government website does mention b2, EMA (the European FDA) doesn’t anywhere, or I haven’t found it yet.

    Let’s have a look at ‘b1’:
    COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b1 elicits human antibody and T H 1 T cell responses
    And here we find out that serial number corresponds to the lipid naono-particles formulations. So e found at least two different formulations:
    Phase I/II study of COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in adults
    The full approval is for BNT162b2.
    Well, CDC is the one to bring clarity this time:
    Confirmed: they had four formulations, they picked b2 version but they interchanged and cherry-picked the trial data as needed: they licensed b2 in US based on German trials made with b1 and so forth.

    And when you think “this is it”, it’s never it:
    Looks like FDA itself picked b2 and knew the trial data is mixed up between formulations, had no problem with it, more so, I discovered there were even more versions used in trials, such as b3c and so forth. Don’t believe me, check page 15 in this FDA document (PDF), as pictured at the top of the article!

    One question remains: Comirnaty as commercial name has long been used in EU, maybe not much in ads or mainstream media for decerebrated plebs, but in anything more technical than that. Why not in US, if they used the same formulation?
    Symmetrically, EU used the name, but no so sure about the b2 formulation.

    And after all this, no one can be certain what formulation they actually put in the vials.
  4. Cominarty has been approved based on only two trial studies that end 2023. It has about a dozen more to complete, as stated in the letter. I don’t see how that can be legal, but if it is, the data can change by the end of the studies, at least theoretically, which means the legal basis for the approval may very well evaporate.

    In a sane world, the Pfizer approval blunder would be the medical equivalent of the Afghanistan ‘blunder’.
    Forget about informed consent, safety, data… all they have is more guns. Which brings me to…
  5. The US Government, like most others, has left legality in March 2020 and not governing. There are dozens of known old meds that can treat these respiratory problems labeled as Covid, more are screened and discovered, there was no evidence of a new virus, at least at the time when they introduced the Emergency state. So the Emergency, the government instating it and everything that started with it is illegal and an act of terrorism. So US doesn’t have a government, but a terrorist organization holding it hostage. Nothing they did after March 2020 is remotely legal, both Trump and Biden should stand in the accused box at Nuremberg 2 now. But sleepy ghosts are changing bed sides dreaming they wake up as people who still hold a little control over their lives.
    In fact, all this is held together solely by the gun, military superiority, and psychological abuse, legal talk is 200% off and it’s just deepening the mass-hypnosis.
    There is no law but the gun, if the government didn’t have a laser point on each forehead, it wouldn’t even exist at this point.
    It’s bare war.
    If you’re not ready to internalize reality, you are not ready to change it.
  6. What the cover pic says. Then check this out!

Marion. F. Gruber, PhD
Director, Office of Vaccines Research & Review
10903 New Hampshire Ave, Building 71, Rm. 3230
Silver Spring, Maryland 20993, USA
Tel: + 1 301 796 1856
e-mail: marion.gruber@fda.hhs.gov


UPDATE SEPT 2, 2021:


CHD reports:

<<Two of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) top vaccine regulators will leave the agency this fall, raising questions about the Biden administration and the way it sidelined the agency.

According to an email sent by Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), to staff members Tuesday, Dr. Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s vaccines office, will quit at the end of October, and her deputy, Dr. Philip Krause, will leave in November.

Gruber and Krause were upset about the Biden administration’s recent announcement that adults should get a COVID booster eight months after they received a second shot, people familiar with the decision told The New York Times.

Neither believed there was enough data to justify offering booster shots yet, the sources said, and both viewed the announcement, amplified by President Biden, as pressure on the FDA to quickly authorize them.

Officials within the FDA were stunned by the news, CNN reported. One source described it as a “big loss” for the FDA and noted it caught leadership off guard.ORDER TODAY: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s New Book — ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’

Marks said he would serve as the acting director of the vaccines office while the agency searched for its next leader.

FDA Spokeswoman Stephanie Caccomo said the agency was “confident in the expertise and ability of our staff to continue our critical public health work.”

However, a former senior FDA leader told Endpoints News, Gruber and Krause are departing because they’re frustrated the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its advisory panel — the Advisory Committee on Immunizations and Practices (ACIP) — are involved in decisions they think should be up to the FDA.

The source said he heard Gruber and Krause were upset with Marks for not insisting those decisions be kept inside the FDA, and with the White House for getting ahead of FDA on booster shots.

“These two are the leaders for biologic [vaccine] review in the U.S.,” wrote Rick Bright, former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, weighing in on the news. “They have a great team, but these two are the true leaders of CBER. A huge global loss if they both leave,” Bright said.

“Dr. Gruber is much more than the director,” Bright added. “She is a global leader. Visionary mastermind behind global clinical regulatory science for flu, Ebola, Mers, Zika, Sars-CoV-2, many others.”>>

Anyone who thinks she sweated harder than Trump for Pfizer’s approval, but all of a sudden had a change of mind and decided to sabotage the boosters is a baby. She’s hiding from justice.

I made this in June 2020. The Grubers are many.

I hope this helped, if anything, I’ll add it here.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them


Selling oregano for weed to kids in parking lots does more good and is more honorable than this lowest-level con job.

FDA approval letter (PDF)
Trial 1
Trial 2

Biden: “They looked at mountains of data”.

No words…

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We need to speed up our little awakening because we’re still light-years behind the reality.
This dwarfs Afghanistan and Covid is but a chapter in its playbook.
This connects all the trigger-words: 5G, Covid, Vaccines, Graphene, The Great Reset, Blockchain, The Fourth Industrial Revolution and beyond.

What Is the Internet of Bodies?

Source: The Rand Corporation (Download PDF)

A wide variety of internet-connected “smart”
devices now promise consumers and
businesses improved performance, convenience, efficiency, and fun. Within this
broader Internet of Things (IoT) lies a growing
industry of devices that monitor the human body,
collect health and other personal information, and
transmit that data over the internet. We refer to these
emerging technologies and the data they collect as
the Internet of Bodies (IoB) (see, for example, Neal,
2014; Lee, 2018), a term first applied to law and policy
in 2016 by law and engineering professor Andrea M.
Matwyshyn (Atlantic Council, 2017; Matwyshyn,
2016; Matwyshyn, 2018; Matawyshyn, 2019).
IoB devices come in many forms. Some are
already in wide use, such as wristwatch fitness
monitors or pacemakers that transmit data about
a patient’s heart directly to a cardiologist. Other
products that are under development or newly on the
market may be less familiar, such as ingestible products that collect and send information on a person’s
gut, microchip implants, brain stimulation devices,
and internet-connected toilets.
These devices have intimate access to the body
and collect vast quantities of personal biometric data.
IoB device makers promise to deliver substantial
health and other benefits but also pose serious risks,
including risks of hacking, privacy infringements,
or malfunction. Some devices, such as a reliable
artificial pancreas for diabetics, could revolutionize
the treatment of disease, while others could merely
inflate health-care costs with little positive effect on
outcomes. Access to huge torrents of live-streaming
biometric data might trigger breakthroughs in medical knowledge or behavioral understanding. It might increase health outcome disparities, where only
people with financial means have access to any of
these benefits. Or it might enable a surveillance state
of unprecedented intrusion and consequence.
There is no universally accepted definition of
the IoB.1
For the purposes of this report, we refer to
the IoB, or the IoB ecosystem, as IoB devices (defined
next, with further explanation in the passages that
follow) together with the software they contain and
the data they collect.

An IoB device is defined as a device that
• contains software or computing capabilities
• can communicate with an internet-connected
device or network
and satisfies one or both of the following:
• collects person-generated health or biometric
• can alter the human body’s function.
The software or computing capabilities in an
IoB device may be as simple as a few lines of code
used to configure a radio frequency identification (RFID) microchip implant, or as complex as a computer that processes artificial intelligence (AI)
and machine learning algorithms. A connection to
the internet through cellular or Wi-Fi networks is
required but need not be a direct connection. For
example, a device may be connected via Bluetooth to
a smartphone or USB device that communicates with
an internet-connected computer. Person-generated
health data (PGHD) refers to health, clinical, or
wellness data collected by technologies to be recorded
or analyzed by the user or another person. Biometric
or behavioral data refers to measurements of unique
physical or behavioral properties about a person.
Finally, an alteration to the body’s function refers
to an augmentation or modification of how the
user’s body performs, such as a change in cognitive
enhancement and memory improvement provided
by a brain-computer interface, or the ability to record
whatever the user sees through an intraocular lens
with a camera.
IoB devices generally, but not always, require a
physical connection to the body (e.g., they are worn,
ingested, implanted, or otherwise attached to or
embedded in the body, temporarily or permanently).
Many IoB devices are medical devices regulated by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).3
Figure 1 depicts examples of technologies in the IoB
ecosystem that are either already available on the U.S.
market or are under development.
Devices that are not connected to the internet,
such as ordinary heart monitors or medical ID bracelets, are not included in the definition of IoB. Nor are implanted magnets (a niche consumer product used
by those in the so-called bodyhacker community
described in the next section) that are not connected
to smartphone applications (apps), because although
they change the body’s functionality by allowing the
user to sense electromagnetic vibrations, the devices
do not contain software. Trends in IoB technologies
and additional examples are further discussed in the
next section.
Some IoB devices may fall in and out of
our definition at different times. For example, a
Wi-Fi-connected smartphone on its own would
not be part of the IoB; however, once a health app
is installed that requires connection to the body to
track user information, such as heart rate or number
of steps taken, the phone would be considered IoB.
Our definition is meant to capture rapidly evolving
technologies that have the potential to bring about
the various risks and benefits that are discussed in
this report. We focused on analyzing existing and
emerging IoB technologies that appear to have the
potential to improve health and medical outcomes,
efficiency, and human function or performance, but
that could also endanger users’ legal, ethical, and
privacy rights or present personal or national security
For this research, we conducted an extensive
literature review and interviewed security experts,
technology developers, and IoB advocates to understand anticipated risks and benefits. We had valuable discussions with experts at BDYHAX 2019, an
annual convention for bodyhackers, in February
2019, and DEFCON 27, one of the world’s largest
hacker conferences, in August 2019. In this report,
we discuss trends in the technology landscape and
outline the benefits and risks to the user and other
stakeholders. We present the current state of governance that applies to IoB devices and the data they
collect and conclude by offering recommendations
for improved regulation to best balance those risks
and rewards.

Operation Warp Speed logo

Transhumanism, Bodyhacking, Biohacking,
and More

The IoB is related to several movements outside of formal health care focused on integrating human bodies
with technology. Next, we summarize some of these concepts,
though there is much overlap and interchangeability among them.
Transhumanism is a worldview and political movement advocating for the transcendence of humanity beyond current human capabilities.
Transhumanists want to use technology, such as
artificial organs and other techniques, to halt aging
and achieve “radical life extension” (Vita-Moore,
2018). Transhumanists may also seek to resist disease,
enhance their intelligence, or thwart fatigue through
diet, exercise, supplements, relaxation techniques, or
nootropics (substances that may improve cognitive
Bodyhackers, biohackers, and cyborgs, who
enjoy experimenting with body enhancement, often
refer to themselves as grinders. They may or may not
identify as transhumanists. These terms are often
interchanged in common usage, but some do distinguish between them (Trammell, 2015). Bodyhacking
generally refers to modifying the body to enhance
one’s physical or cognitive abilities. Some bodyhacking is purely aesthetic. Hackers have implanted horns
in their heads and LED lights under their skin. Other
hacks, such as implanting RFID microchips in one’s
hand, are meant to enhance function, allowing users
to unlock doors, ride public transportation, store
emergency contact information, or make purchases
with the sweep of an arm (Baenen, 2017; Savage,
2018). One bodyhacker removed the RFID microchip from her car’s key fob and had it implanted
in her arm (Linder, 2019). A few bodyhackers have
implanted a device that is a combined wireless router
and hard drive that can be used as a node in a wireless mesh network (Oberhaus, 2019). Some bodyhacking is medical in nature, including 3D-printed
prosthetics and do-it-yourself artificial pancreases.
Still others use the term for any method of improving
health, including bodybuilding, diet, or exercise.
Biohacking generally denotes techniques that
modify the biological systems of humans or other
living organisms. This ranges from bodybuilding
and nootropics to developing cures for diseases via
self-experimentation to human genetic manipulation
through CRISPR-Cas9 techniques (Samuel, 2019;
Griffin, 2018).
Cyborgs, or cybernetic organisms, are people
who have used machines to enhance intelligence or
the senses.
Neil Harbisson, a colorblind man who can
“hear” color through an antenna implanted in his
head that plays a tune for different colors or wavelengths of light, is acknowledged as the first person to
be legally recognized by a government as a cyborg, by
being allowed to have his passport picture include his
implant (Donahue, 2017).
Because IoB is a wide-ranging field that
intersects with do-it-yourself body modification,
consumer products, and medical care, understanding
its benefits and risks is critical.

The Internet of Bodies is here. This is how it could change our lives

04 Jun 2020, Xiao Liu Fellow at the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, World Economic Forum

  • We’re entering the era of the “Internet of Bodies”: collecting our physical data via a range of devices that can be implanted, swallowed or worn.
  • The result is a huge amount of health-related data that could improve human wellbeing around the world, and prove crucial in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • But a number of risks and challenges must be addressed to realize the potential of this technology, from privacy issues to practical hurdles.

In the special wards of Shanghai’s Public Health Clinical Center, nurses use smart thermometers to check the temperatures of COVID-19 patients. Each person’s temperature is recorded with a sensor, reducing the risk of infection through contact, and the data is sent to an observation dashboard. An abnormal result triggers an alert to medical staff, who can then intervene promptly. The gathered data also allows medics to analyse trends over time.

The smart thermometers are designed by VivaLNK, a Silicon-Valley based startup, and are a powerful example of the many digital products and services that are revolutionizing healthcare. After the Internet of Things, which transformed the way we live, travel and work by connecting everyday objects to the Internet, it’s now time for the Internet of Bodies. This means collecting our physical data via devices that can be implanted, swallowed or simply worn, generating huge amounts of health-related information.

Some of these solutions, such as fitness trackers, are an extension of the Internet of Things. But because the Internet of Bodies centres on the human body and health, it also raises its own specific set of opportunities and challenges, from privacy issues to legal and ethical questions.

Image: McKinsey & Company

Connecting our bodies

As futuristic as the Internet of Bodies may seem, many people are already connected to it through wearable devices. The smartwatch segment alone has grown into a $13 billion market by 2018, and is projected to increase another 32% to $18 billion by 2021. Smart toothbrushes and even hairbrushes can also let people track patterns in their personal care and behaviour.

For health professionals, the Internet of Bodies opens the gate to a new era of effective monitoring and treatment.

In 2017, the U.S. Federal Drug Administration approved the first use of digital pills in the United States. Digital pills contain tiny, ingestible sensors, as well as medicine. Once swallowed, the sensor is activated in the patient’s stomach and transmits data to their smartphone or other devices.

In 2018, Kaiser Permanente, a healthcare provider in California, started a virtual rehab program for patients recovering from heart attacks. The patients shared their data with their care providers through a smartwatch, allowing for better monitoring and a closer, more continuous relationship between patient and doctor. Thanks to this innovation, the completion rate of the rehab program rose from less than 50% to 87%, accompanied by a fall in the readmission rate and programme cost.

The deluge of data collected through such technologies is advancing our understanding of how human behaviour, lifestyle and environmental conditions affect our health. It has also expanded the notion of healthcare beyond the hospital or surgery and into everyday life. This could prove crucial in fighting the coronavirus pandemic. Keeping track of symptoms could help us stop the spread of infection, and quickly detect new cases. Researchers are investigating whether data gathered from smartwatches and similar devices can be used as viral infection alerts by tracking the user’s heart rate and breathing.

At the same time, this complex and evolving technology raises new regulatory challenges.

What counts as health information?

In most countries, strict regulations exist around personal health information such as medical records and blood or tissue samples. However, these conventional regulations often fail to cover the new kind of health data generated through the Internet of Bodies, and the entities gathering and processing this data.

In the United States, the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), which is the major law for health data regulation, applies only to medical providers, health insurers, and their business associations. Its definition of “personal health information” covers only the data held by these entities. This definition is turning out to be inadequate for the era of the Internet of Bodies. Tech companies are now also offering health-related products and services, and gathering data. Margaret Riley, a professor of health law at the University of Virginia, pointed out to me in an interview that HIPPA does not cover the masses of data from consumer wearables, for example.

Another problem is that the current regulations only look at whether the data is sensitive in itself, not whether it can be used to generate sensitive information. For example, the result of a blood test in a hospital will generally be classified as sensitive data, because it reveals private information about your personal health. But today, all sorts of seemingly non-sensitive data can also be used to draw inferences about your health, through data analytics. Glenn Cohen, a professor at Harvard Law school, told me in an interview that even data that is not about health at all, such as grocery shopping lists, can be used for such inferences. As a result, conventional regulations may fail to cover data that is sensitive and private, simply because it did not look sensitive before it was processed.

Data risks

Identifying and protecting sensitive data matters, because it can directly affect how we are treated by institutions and other people. With big data analytics, countless day-to-day actions and decisions can ultimately feed into our health profile, which may be created and maintained not just by traditional healthcare providers, but also by tech companies or other entities. Without appropriate laws and regulations, it could also be sold. At the same time, data from the Internet of Bodies can be used to make predictions and inferences that could affect a person’s or group’s access to resources such as healthcare, insurance and employment.

James Dempsey, director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, told me in an interview that this could lead to unfair treatment. He warned of potential discrimination and bias when such data is used for decisions in insurance and employment. The affected people may not even be aware of this.

One solution would be to update the regulations. Sandra Wachter and Brent Mittelstadt, two scholars at the Oxford Internet Institute, suggest that data protection law should focus more on how and why data is processed, and not just on its raw state. They argue for a so-called “right to reasonable inferences”, meaning the right to have your data used only for reasonable, socially acceptable inferences. This would involve setting standards on whether and when inferring certain information from a person’s data, including the state of their present or future health, is socially acceptable or overly invasive.

Practical problems

Apart from the concerns over privacy and sensitivity, there are also a number of practical problems in dealing with the sheer volume of data generated by the Internet of Bodies. The lack of standards around security and data processing makes it difficult to combine data from diverse sources, and use it to advance research. Different countries and institutions are trying to jointly overcome this problem. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and its Standards Association have been working with the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health, as well as universities and businesses among other stakeholders since 2016, to address the security and interoperability issue of connected health.

As the Internet of Bodies spreads into every aspect of our existence, we are facing a range of new challenges. But we also have an unprecedented chance to improve our health and well-being, and save countless lives. During the COVID-19 crisis, using this opportunity and finding solutions to the challenges is a more urgent task than ever. This relies on government agencies and legislative bodies working with the private sector and civil society to create a robust governance framework, and to include inferences in the realm of data protection. Devising technological and regulatory standards for interoperability and security would also be crucial to unleashing the power of the newly available data. The key is to collaborate across borders and sectors to fully realize the enormous benefits of this rapidly advancing technology.

Now more from the Rand Corporation

Governance of IoB devices is managed through a patchwork of state and federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, and consumer advocacy groups

  • The primary entities responsible for governance of IoB devices are the FDA and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
  • Although the FDA is making strides in cybersecurity of medical devices, many IoB devices, especially those available for consumer use, do not fall under FDA jurisdiction.
  • Federal and state officials have begun to address cybersecurity risks associated with IoB that are beyond FDA oversight, but there are few laws that mandate cybersecurity best practices.

As with IoB devices, there is no single entity that provides oversight to IoB data

  • Protection of medical information is regulated at the federal level, in part, by HIPAA.
  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) helps ensure data security and consumer privacy through legal actions brought by the Bureau of Consumer Protection.
  • Data brokers are largely unregulated, but some legal experts are calling for policies to protect consumers.
  • As the United States has no federal data privacy law, states have introduced a patchwork of laws and regulations that apply to residents’ personal data, some of which includes IoB-related information.
  • The lack of consistency in IoB laws among states and between the state and federal level potentially enables regulatory gaps and enforcement challenges.


  • The U.S. Commerce Department can put foreign IoB companies on its “Entity List,” preventing them from doing business with Americans, if those foreign companies are implicated in human rights violations.
  • As 5G, Wi-Fi 6, and satellite internet standards are rolled out, the federal government should be prepared for issues by funding studies and working with experts to develop security regulations.
  • It will be important to consider how to incentivize quicker phase-out of the legacy medical devices with poor cybersecurity that are already in wide use.
  • IoB developers must be more attentive to cybersecurity by integrating cybersecurity and privacy considerations from the beginning of product development.
  • Device makers should test software for vulnerabilities often and devise methods for users to patch software.
  • Congress should consider establishing federal data transparency and protection standards for data that are collected from the IoB.
  • The FTC could play a larger role to ensure that marketing claims about improved well-being or specific health treatment are backed by appropriate evidence.


Internet of Bodies (IoB): Future of Healthcare & Medical Technology

Kashmir Observer | March 27, 2021   

By Khalid Mustafa

JAMMU and Kashmir is almost always in the news for one reason or another.  Apart from the obvious political headlines, J&K was also in the news because of covid-19.  As the world struggled with covid-19 pandemic, J&K faced a peculiar situation due to its poor health infrastructure.  Nonetheless, all sections of society did a commendable job in keeping covid  under control and preventing the loss of life as much as possible. The doctors Association in Kashmir along with the administration did  as much as possible  through their efforts.  For that we are all thankful to them. However, it is about time that we integrate our Healthcare System by upgrading it and introducing to it new technologies from the current world.

We’ve all heard of the Internet of Things, a network of products ranging from refrigerators to cars to industrial control systems that are connected to the internet. Internet of Bodies (IoB) the outcome of the Internet of Things (IoT) is broadly helping the healthcare system and every individual to live life with ease by managing the human body in terms of technology. The Internet of Bodies connects the human body to a network of internet run devices.

The use of IoB can be independent or by the health care heroes (doctors) to monitor, report and enhance the health system of the human body.  The internet of Bodies (IoB) are broadly classified into three categories or in some cases we can say three generations – Body Internal, Body External and Body embedded. The Body Internal model of IoB is the category, in which the individual or patient is interacting with the technology environment or we can say internet or our healthcare system by having an installed device inside the human body. Body External model or generation of IoB signifies the model where the device is installed external to the body for certain usage viz. Apple watches and other smart bands from various OEM’s for tracking blood pressure, heart rate etc which can later be used for proper health tracking and monitoring purposes. Last one under this classifications are Body Embedded, in which the devices are embedded under the skin by health care professionals during a number of health situations.

The Internet of Bodies is a small part or even the offspring of the Internet of Things. Much like it, there remains the challenge of data and information breach as we have already witnessed many excessive distributed denial of service (DDos) attacks and other cyber-attacks on IoTs to exploit data and gather information. The effects are even more severe and vulnerable in the case of the Internet of Bodies as the human body is involved in this schema.

The risk of these threats has taken over the discussion about the IOBs.  Thus,  this  has become a  great concern in medical technology companies. Most of the existing IoB companies just rely on end-user license agreements and privacy policies to retain rights in software and to create rights to monitor, aggregate and share users’ body data. They just need to properly enhance the security model and implement high security measures to avoid any misfortune. For the same the Government of India is already examining the personal data protection bill 2019.

The Internet has not managed to change our lifestyles in the way the internet of things will!

Views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the editorial stance of Kashmir Observer

  • The author is presently Manager IT & Ops In HK Group


And this is some old DARPA research anticipating the hive mind:

Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE)

Dr. Bryan Jacobs

Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE)

Social media, sensor feeds, and scientific studies generate large amounts of valuable data. However, understanding the relationships among this data can be challenging. Graph analytics has emerged as an approach by which analysts can efficiently examine the structure of the large networks produced from these data sources and draw conclusions from the observed patterns. By understanding the complex relationships both within and between data sources, a more complete picture of the analysis problem can be understood. With lessons learned from innovations in the expanding realm of deep neural networks, the Hierarchical Identify Verify Exploit (HIVE) program seeks to advance the arena of graph analytics.

The HIVE program is looking to build a graph analytics processor that can process streaming graphs 1000X faster and at much lower power than current processing technology. If successful, the program will enable graph analytics techniques powerful enough to solve tough challenges in cyber security, infrastructure monitoring and other areas of national interest. Graph analytic processing that currently requires racks of servers could become practical in tactical situations to support front-line decision making. What ’s more, these advanced graph analytics servers could have the power to analyze the billion- and trillion-edge graphs that will be generated by the Internet of Things, ever-expanding social networks, and future sensor networks.

In parallel with the hardware development of a HIVE processor, DARPA is working with MIT Lincoln Laboratory and Amazon Web Services (AWS) to host the HIVE Graph Challenge with the goal of developing a trillion-edge dataset. This freely available dataset will spur innovative software and hardware solutions in the broader graph analysis community that will contribute to the HIVE program.

The overall objective is to accelerate innovation in graph analytics to open new pathways for meeting the challenge of understanding an ever-increasing torrent of data. The HIVE program features two primary challenges:

  • The first is a static graph problem focused on sub-graph Isomorphism. This task is to further the ability to search a large graph in order to identify a particular subsection of that graph.
  • The second is a dynamic graph problem focused on trying to find optimal clusters of data within the graph.

Both challenges will include a small graph problem in the billions of nodes and a large graph problem in the trillions of nodes.


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them