Many people have been sharing the lectures of Dr. James Giordano. I wanted to post an article to inform people of the capabilities of weaponized neuro science. In our time, altering perceptions and neurological functioning of people is important to understand in the context of psychological warfare operations that can affect individuals, broad populations or even the entire world. When you know about what the capabilities are, it is easier to recognize when they could be deployed in our life today.
In the webinar above - which I highly recommend everyone watches - Dr. Giordano explains how individuals can be targeted in their health, biology, personality flaws, online identity, medical history suggesting psychiatric illness - to create destructive ripple effects in their lives as well as their sphere of influence. For example, people can be targeted, and made to look like they have psychiatric illness - and, in my view, may even be driven to commit suicide.
This is important information for people to review, as we have ongoing discussions about what the exact mechanism of the C19 plandemic and psychological warfare operation in conjunction with the deployment of C19 bioweapons is.
Many doctors and subsequently the public - have disagreements on weather there is a virus or not, weather there is snake venom or other animal toxins involved or if there is nanotechnology.
These two lectures and this article suggests in a comprehensive way that ALL OF THESE COULD BE SIMULTANEOUSLY TRUE if we understand that this is a warfare scenario - suggesting that we should consider multiple weapon systems in our treatment approaches.
Toxins like snake venoms and other animal toxins, modified microbes and viruses can be deployed in addition to CRISPR cas9 gene modification. This is to alter, affect and modulate human behavior. Nanotechnology allows self assembly of molecules in the body, auto aggregation, clumping - which can have physiologic effects. He discusses the capability to aerosolize nanotechnologies via drones that can disrupt human neurological functioning. Nanotechnologies can be used in tandem with other things (like the toxins and engineered virus particles, microbes shown below?) and be weaponized themselves.
It is important to understand that many different weapons systems can be deployed with variable effects.
In the main, it is the latter two types of application that foster the most concerns. For example, as depicted in Table 1, a variety of pharmacological agents (e.g., stimulants, including amphetamine derivatives; eugeroics, such as modafinil; and nootropics, such as the racetams) and brain-machine interfaces (such as EEG-based neurofeedback, transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation, and brain-computer interfaces) can be employed to modulate activity within identified neurological networks operative in cognitive and motor processes and functions to facilitate and/or optimize key performance elements instrumental to the training and capabilities of warfighters and intelligence operators.
As well, neuroS/T can be weaponized to target neurological substrates and mechanisms that affect physiology, cognition, emotions and behaviors. As shown in Table 2, such “neuroweapons” include drugs to degrade physiologic and cognitive functions, and/or to alter emotional states to affect the desire or capacity for aggression and combat; organic toxins that can induce neuromuscular paralysis and death; microbial agents (e.g., bacteria and viruses, inclusive of “bio-hacked”, genetically-modified organisms) that can incur various levels of morbidity – or mortality, and a number of technologies that can be used to alter sensory, perceptual, cognitive and motoric functions.
Current Conventions, Defining “Neuroweapons” and the Dilemma of Control
Obviously, research, production, and stockpiling of defined neuro-microbiologicals, and select chemicals and toxins are constrained and/or proscribed by the extant BTWC and Chemical Weapons Convention. However, other neurobiological substances (e.g., pharmaceutical formulations of neurotropic drugs, organic neurotoxins and bio-regulators) and neurotechnologies (e.g., neuromodulatory devices) developed and utilized as medical products might not, and these are readily and commercially available.
As noted in a 2008 report of the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences entitled Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience and Related Technologies, products intended for the health market can be, and often are studied and developed for possible employment in military applications (e.g., to optimize or degrade aspects of human performance [10,11]). In the United States, any such activity in federally funded programs would be subject to oversight in accordance with dual-use research of concerns policies (of 2012 and 2014), reflecting the general tenor of the BTWC and CWC to date. 
But while such oversight and regulation constrains dual-use neuroS/T research in participatory states, it may provide opportunities for non-participatory countries and/or non-state actors to make in-roads in such enterprises to achieve a new balance of power.  Indeed, neuroS/T is an international endeavor, and a number of nations are engaged in dedicated programs of neuroS/T research with defense applications that may exert global strategic influence.  Moreover, neuroS/T research and development need not be illicit; exemptions for health and routine experimental use may foster a grey zone within which investigations for viability and employment as weapons may be undertaken.
The dedication of private and/or governmentally-supported industrial efforts to neuroS/T research and development could also enable and (at least be argued to) justify postures and protocols of diminished transparency, as commercial interests can be shielded as means to protect proprietary interests and intellectual property. Under such veils, dual-use agendas can be fostered and developed. An additional concern is that neurobiological and neurochemical substances and certain neurotechnologies can be obtained and/or developed (i.e., “bio-hacked”) with relative ease by individual non-state actors who may be supported by state-endorsed venture capital, and who may operate without regard for regulations defined by the current BTWC, thereby creating further opportunistic windows for influence.
If we define a weapon as, “a means of contending against another…to injure, defeat, or destroy,”  the question is not if, but to what extent the brain sciences could – and likely will – be engaged in such pursuits. Given such possibilities and probability for use, military applications of neuroS/T should not be overlooked or disregarded. Neuroweapons should not be considered for their mass destructive effect(s), but rather, should be acknowledged for their capability for amplified disruption that is executable on a variety of levels, from the individual to the political. This is particularly true of hybrid and asymmetrical engagement scenarios, in which the desired outcome is an increasing “ripple effect” resulting from a relatively small initial insult.
Furthermore, the ability to utilize neuroS/T to gain influence on the global stage is not limited to warfighting applications. The growing prominence of non-Western nations in neuroS/T research and production may afford greater leverage, if not purchase, to effect “strategic latency” (i.e., the potential to evoke significant shifts in the balance of power) by manipulating healthcare and biotechnology sales markets to affect socio-economics, and international relations. That neuroS/T can, and likely will be engaged for dual-use serves to fortify the strategic latency impact.
Still, there is question as to what extent international research efforts in neuroS/T should – and realistically can – be regulated. Projective and prescriptive ethical ideals can be developed, and these can be useful in formulating guidelines and policies that are sensitive and responsive to real-world scenarios of biotechnological research and its translation. But the flexibility of these approaches also means that they are not conclusive, and the relative fluidity (or diversion) of neuroS/T between healthcare and dual-use or military applications demands due diligence to evaluate any such uses within the often blurred contexts (and “fuzzy” distinctions) of public health, political and military ethics, and the reach and rigor of international treaties and law.
According to Dr. Giordano, many weapons system can be used for dual purpose, meaning they could be used as medications but also function as weapons. This is what has been difficult to understand for many. Snake venom peptides can be used in medical applications or as a weapon. Nanotechnology could be used as a beneficial medical technology and at the same time as a weapon and tool to create cyborgs and brain computer interfaces. Neurotechnological methods can also be used remotely, via extremely low frequency modulation and other remote frequency mind control systems - but their most immediate use is in medicine like Brain EEG’s and transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Any of these measures could be in play at this time. I believe that reviewing the military research literature can help us understand broader contexts of how these modalities can be applied and what we have to be open minded to understand. I do not believe that there is only ONE exclusive answer, but I do expect that many different weapons system could be in play. Therefore I caution to narrow the therapeutic considerations too much - but to be safe I would combine broad nutritional supplementation with metal detoxification and selectively depending on the person some of the molecules below. This is not meant to be an exclusive list for therapeutic considerations.
I have previously spoken about the many molecules to be considered like Vitamin C, D, broad multivitamins, Glutathione, NAC, EDTA, Humic and Fulvic Acid, Nitric Oxide supplementation, multi minerals including Boron, Iodine; Colloidal/ Hydrosol Gold, Nattokinase. Molecules like Ivermectin, Methylene Blue, Artemisia annua, Thymoquinone, Curcumin. Metal detoxification with EDTA, Zeolite. Others have had beneficial effects with Chlorine Dioxide, some state symptomatic improvements with Nicotine and other compounds. Being prepared against hemorrhagic fever with Alebndazole/Fenbendazole which others also have used for parasitic infections.
The most important defense is our Mind, for that is literally the Battlespace. Fortifying ourselves with love, joy, hope, connecting with our inner knowing and soulful voice, using meditation, prayer, communion with God in whatever form that is meaningful and nurturing to the individual. Connecting with nature and allowing it to heal us.
I recently became affiliated with the Med Five System. Each patented enteric coated tablet contains 400mg EDTA with other important ingredients described below. The enteric coated system allows to overcome the usual concern about poor absorbability of EDTA via the gut. The system was codeveloped with the Cardiologist Dr JAMES ROBERTS, MD FACC who has practiced invasive and integrative cardiology for twenty years. He is board certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiology, and is a Fellow of the American College of Cardiology, Diplomat Candidate of the American Board of Chelation Therapy, and Interim Diplomat of the American Board of Oxidative Medicine. He has provided the clinical data showing reversal of atherosclerosis seen on the website, which is what EDTA can help with in addition to metal and nanotechnology detoxification. To me this system is a comfortable way to take the EDTA in addition to daily multimineral supplementation. The recommended dose for atherosclerosis reversal is 2 tablets per day, but for detoxification purposes I think 1 tablet 5 days a week seems reasonable. I am happy to have found a EDTA delivery that can be widely available to the public - that also has been tested for its additional vascular health benefits.