sinners4diseasecontrol

 Oleg Grigoriev, PhD in Biosciences, Chairman of the Russian Committee for Protection against Non-Ionizing Radiation, was recently interviewed by Anna Shafran on Zvezda Radio in a segment titled “5G and AI: Solving Social Problems Through Direct Human Control.” The original interview, which I have not seen, was in Russian. I received a link from Prof. Olle Johannson to a YouTube video which had been dubbed into English by AI. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pOx0Lbrlpw

 The translation leaves much to be desired, but a lot of important information comes across, so I sat down and typed out a manuscript from the subtitles, rectifying whatever errors I could identify. Below, I present the most important points.

 On the subject of non-ionizing radiation (NIR) and its effects on living organisms, the host begins by noting that NIR has become an integral part of modern existence, and therefore enquiries into it generate a great deal of lively interest “essentially, in theory, globally.” In my experience, Russian society has been more open to discussing this issue, despite the overwhelming popularity of wireless technology. Or should I say the reverse: wireless technology is overwhelmingly popular in Russia despite widespread knowledge of its harms.

 To start off, the host brings up a lecture by Alex Pentland, a scientific researcher at the National Academy of Engineering (and MIT and WEF https://idss.mit.edu/staff/alex-sandy-pentland/) in the US who is using network science to understand changes in actual human behavior, i.e., how AI can assist in predicting human behavior and expediting the resolution of social problems. She says social engineering emerged in 2020 as a prominent concern. AI and LLMs (Large Language Models) were found capable of helping integrate human behavior into forecasting models to enhance attention and response to whatever the people in power deem critical, like climate change, pandemics and income inequality.

 Grigoriev says that despite the lofty goals being expressed, what they are attempting to do fundamentally is to manage human responses by utilizing intricate, interconnected mechanisms of “reverse” biological and psychophysiological feedback. This is collective management rather than individual. Individual responses can differ. For example, you can ignore a red light, say on your smartphone, but most people will react and attend to it according to the rules. So what the team of researchers at MIT are doing is learning how to use psychophysiological and physical “beacons” embedded in the programs, which are further embedded in visual information display tools, along with sound and electromagnetic accompaniment in devices like smartphones, computers and tablets. They hope to utilize these “beacons” for enhanced user experiences and interaction with technology.

 Note the “electromagnetic accompaniment” of these wireless devices. If the translation is correct, what Grigoriev is saying is that the electromagnetic fields generated by devices are to be manipulated to “enhance user experiences.”

 He says “The user interface plays a crucial role in guiding users, providing them with a means to interact with a system or device, and shaping their actions based on information and cues.” The feedback, he says, is controlled by two channels. The first is through behavioral reactions—the actions the users subsequently perform. The means for assessing that are already integrated into these devices. Users, we know, are being constantly monitored.

 From there, AI is used to process this breathtakingly enormous amount of data to customize the experience for individual users, who are actively involved in it. Pentland’s research focuses on how individuals make decisions regarding the trajectory of collective behavior, while being influenced by the physical and psychophysiological factors at play.

 Grigoriev points out that this is no major scientific breakthrough, but he says the second feedback channel is noteworthy: direct biological feedback, already incorporated in 5 and 6G communication standards. This way, he says, the system will get to control physical reactions, direct responses. And, he says, the entire concept is specifically about avoiding being overly conspicuous at the individual level. They want the individual to retain the sense of free will, freedom of action, so that we all keep thinking we are making our own independent decisions.

 How heartwarming.

 Then we can all blame ourselves for whatever crimes we’ve been manipulated into committing.

 At this point, the researchers are focusing on groups of up to 100, and Grigoriev says he is not sure they have the capacity to manage a million. He mentions a diagram with a “scheme” that he says has discussed several times before, apparently on the same program, on how the education system is to be developed, including devices, systems and standard software. The question is how they can technically and technologically implement this “binding mandatory delivery” as has been done in the past.

 If someone wants to participate of their own will, that is one thing, but if there is “a thesis of continuous education that is provided by digital means,” you will have to be tied to these devices and the software and the feedback system.

 The host notes, “If the thesis of continuity of education is declared, that means throughout their entire life, a person is somehow obliged to somehow improve their qualifications,” then from age five or ten, they will be integrated into this system in the event that education is digitized.

 Grigoriev notes it would be stupid to say a person should not educate themselves throughout their life, but if education is digitized, it is a completely different situation. He says, “This is not about education, but about managing mass collective behavior. Not just consciousness, but behavior.”

 The big issues these days, Grigoriev and his host say, depend not on technologies or systems we design, but on human behavior, so we are faced with regulating human behavior again, and they are thus proposing a pathway through continuous digital education. Theoretically, we can relax because these are university professors, but they are moving ahead with the project very quickly, and there is already a standard project dedicated specifically to the ideological conceptual component of software for digital education in schools, i.e., what to include and how to organize it according to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), headquartered in the US, and its subcommittee on education.

 I note that the IEEE has always been hostile to any mention of biological effects of the technology they oversee. Grigoriev notes they are participating in this with no ulterior motives, but they lend the project official status and produce the standards from which the orders for equipping schools are formed. (In Japan, that has been tablets for which wired connections can be hard to obtain, forcing most children to rely on wireless routers.) Then all those devices end up in the schools. Grigoriev warns, “First they are provided to the children, then teachers and parents get involved in this story, and thus through several steps, we find ourselves in this web of interconnected processes, stakeholders and educational infrastructure.” He says, we ultimately wind up with formation of a digital behavior stereotype from childhood, i.e., development of consistent patterns of behavior in the digital realm ingrained in us from an early age. The age at which children are being introduced to digital education is gradually decreasing, he says, “under the pressure of lobbyists and digitalization enthusiasts.” Because the system is pervasive and readily available in homes, pockets and schools, the children acclimatize rapidly to this “ecosystem” of digitization, firmly believing they are an integral part of this well-established digital educational environment, and they are engaged in the management and participate in providing feedback.

 One friend in Japan said he was surprised to find out that far from being normal serious textbook material that had been uploaded, as one would expect, the content of the ballyhooed digital education was more like cartoons, but somewhat interactive. Is this how they get children who are already heavily addicted to video games to study? In exasperation, another friend said, “The children are going to learn nothing from this rubbish!” A local after-school club banned use of the tablets, but from time to time the children needed to do “homework” on them, so they were allowed to use them on the condition that they just did the homework and then turned their tablets off. Some of the children had no Wi-Fi at home, so there was no other choice. The club had access to a weak signal by a window. The club leader also said that in contrast to paper homework, the teachers are almost completely unable to help children with their tablet homework.

 Grigoriev brings up the question of feedback, of “reverse biological connection” and “reverse reaction connection.” Issues, he says, can be resolved by transmitting certain signals such as color, sound, font, etc. that are embedded in the design and algorithms of the programs. The programs have an educational focus and they do aim to prove effective solutions. What Grigoriev is intent on emphasizing, however, is that the algorithms and the standards they are based on have gone through a mere three-step process before being brought to us, so the ideology behind them is laid down by these guys at MIT and Stanford, and the US armed forces are also officially known to be involved. The children are subjected to this digital education totally as part of a mass experiment.

 Finally, Grigoriev brings up “all aspects related to organ, vision, nervous system, muscular-skeletal disorders and weight/muscle mass imbalance” saying they are “covered in this system,” which leaves me wondering about the translation because he then says, “It is extremely challenging to find children who are practically healthy, who come in and go out (spend appropriate time outdoors?), as it is a task that is very hard to accomplish. The statistics we have gathered on this occasion clearly demonstrate that during this period of digitization, virtually all groups of nosological (i.e., known, classified) diseases have witnessed a remarkable and unprecedented surge in numbers and prevalence.”

 Well, will the children be helped if their biological feedback shows how sick they are being made in this wireless wonderland?

 Grigoriev says, “The 5G system and particularly 6G, which incorporates a system of reverse biological feedback, smart implants, etc., is all built into this standard that serves as the foundation for advanced technologies. This wraps up this system, this configuration, makes it comprehensive, complete and allows you to purposefully direct signals to those groups, receive a response, adjust the signals and manage them. This is just one of those cases where they’re told to go left, but they go right instead, because they got a signal…You feel like you made the decision yourself, but it is already a really big deal. We don’t know where the decisions come from.”

 The host concludes with a call for establishment of bioethical committees to oversee technology advancement.

 Which leaves me wondering if another bureaucratic layer would solve a problem that has been caused by an out-of-control technocratic bureaucracy to begin with.