Global biosurveillance under scrutiny

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic was undoubtedly a catalyst for the geopolitical changes underway in the first quarter of the 21st century. All evidence suggests that it also marked the beginning of a new biopolitical era, affecting a vast number of people, regardless of their nationality or where they live on the planet. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that the substances administered as part of vaccination campaigns contained undeclared components, one of whose properties is to activate a radio-electronic device implanted within human tissue. Equipped with a transceiver function, vaccinated individuals are thus transformed into nodes in a network capable of responding to external stimuli and providing biometric data. Advances in connectivity and in computerized data-processing infrastructure suggest that the “Internet of Bodies” is currently being deployed on a global scale.

This issue, which abruptly brings us back to an Orwellian world, is paradoxically ignored in the political and institutional spheres. Aside from a few exceptions, the fact remains that no health, professional or scientific authority has officially recognised any abnormalities or fraud relating to the composition of vaccines and their adverse effects — at least not to date. Furthermore, the issue has become closely entangled in controversies surrounding the public health emergency— namely, claims regarding the medical efficacy of vaccines and their adverse health effects— and thus, ultimately, the credibility of the biotechnologies involved and political accountability. The issue reinforced the already thick layer of controversy that emerged at the start of the pandemic and was swept under the rug by COVID orthodoxy, ultimately contributing to making the biometric agenda even more opaque.

Exploring this topic therefore requires, first and foremost, laying out the facts and untangling the web of perceptions and information in which it is embedded. A thorough examination reveals the full range of tactics deployed within a conflict environment that has been likened —even within the highest echelons of the biomedical administration— to a fifth-generation war. The following analysis addresses this assertion. Far more than a biotechnological phenomenon or a public health plan aimed at eradicating the coronavirus at any cost, the perspective that emerges resembles the implementation of a large-scale bionanotechnological system, whose objectives are, a priori, related to the discretionary control of the population.