NanoTech, Needles & Nonsense: some clarity from Harvard University

Propagandists demand our trust. Don't they realise the truth about transhumanism is published in their own institutional library archives?

Let me start with an introduction. This lady is a respected senior academic with expertise in defining ‘fake news’:

Assistant Professor Joan Donovan is based in the Dept of Journalism and Emerging Media Studies at the College of Communications at Boston University. Previously, she was at Harvard University. She is co-author of Meme Wars: The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America. And a quick scan of the book’s Amazon reviews tells us all we need to know about the quality of her work:

The authors start with the premise that memes are primarily a tool of the far-right to harm America. Then they jump through hoops to support that premise. Instead what an academic should do is attempt to explore the meme culture and then come to a conclusion. The conclusion was arrived at first and then they back filled the conclusion with a collection of biased excrement. The idea that memes can harm America or discourse in America is laughable. Maybe the authors should address the fact that memes often showcase the hypocrisy of those in the academic and political elite classes. While there is some interesting background on the genesis of memes, there is no real attempt to explore the topic from an honest intellectual standpoint. (my emphasis)

Mmmm, maybe because she was being paid by the Fake-Fact-Checkers themselves to write this book and similar articles? She was, after all, at Harvard University as Research Director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media Politics and Public Policy, where she directed the Technology and Social Change Research Project. This involved ‘researching’ media manipulation, disinformation, and adversarial media movements. Her writing seems very politically-motivated (interesting that she recently moved to Boston Uni).

Let’s not forget that Mistakes were definitely NOT Made and that Harvard University was, and still is - implicit to the covid fraud. In fact, Harvard forms a crucial part of the propaganda machinery, including control of the narrative in the form of ‘academic endorsement’ and runs one of the central Fake-Fact-Checking entities alongside Stanford Uni’s Internet Observatory. It is the hub of many Google News Initiative projects and beneficiary of US$Millions of BigPharma funding.

If you want a nauseating example of Harvard Uni propaganda full-on, watch this 17 Aug 2021 event. Researchers from a Harvard-partnership called the ‘COVID States Project’ published a 1-hour livestream, presenting interpretations of ‘fake news’ and ‘misinformation’. Based on flawed methodology, one presentation included an ‘analysis’ of social media engagement with ‘vaccine hesitancy’. Three years on, it is fascinating to watch these captured ‘academics’ and how wrapped-up in their own nonsense and egos they were - are they still in the mass formation?

I want to highlight that the Harvard Centre where the rainbow-coloured Prof Joan Donavon and colleagues worked, published a research study in 2021 that highlighted the top 4 pieces of ‘fake news’ about the ‘vaccines’ that caused ‘death’:

Screenshot from this Article on Harvard Uni’s website (2021)

Poor old Rainbow Joan. If she wants her Critical Internet Studies Institute to be successful, could she do any better than begin any study into ‘mis/dis-information’ and ‘fake news’ and ‘conspiracy theory’ within her own institution’s archives?

History of Nanotech

A unique and comprehensive analysis of the history and context of research and development related to Transhumanism has recently been published in a four-part series in

Propaganda In Focus

. The authors are Dr David Hughes, Dr Lissa Johnson and Dr Dan Broudy. Part 1 entitled Bringing Transhumanism Down to Earth: Military Intelligence Operations Cloaked in the False Promise of Transcendence. This provides an excellent introduction and realistic grounding for anyone still in denial (and who isn’t?!) about the likely objectives of the Structural Deep Event that is seen as 'covid'. This series on Transhumanism includes numerous pieces of the jigsaw which thoughtfully plot the nefarious connections between geopolitics, Government policies, funding and research outcomes. Here is a quote from Part 4:

…contrary to common misconception that nanotechnology is new, the nanoscience “revolution” dates to the late 1950s. As described in a 2010 Air Force Research Laboratory report on Nanoscience Technologies, in 1959 Richard Feynman, who later received the Nobel Prize in Physics, gave a talk titled, ‘There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom’. The talk introduced the nascent field of nanoscience and nanotechnology, involving atom-by-atom manipulation of matter, which Feynman saw as driving future developments in computing, information technology, biology, and mechanical systems. The 2010 Air Force report notes that, at the time, fifty years after Feynman’s talk, nanotechnology underpinned many products and capabilities in the fields envisioned by Feynman and more, such as the healthcare, communications, electronics, and recreation industries. (my emphasis)

You can get some insights into Richard Freyman’s personality and his seminal talk, including the ‘smallest artwork in the world’ (at that time), in this archived video:

From Freyman’s thesis, we can assume the integration of tech - NanoTech - is essential to understanding how humanity could be hijacked, controlled (‘upgraded’?) to become ‘Transhuman’. As the authors confirm, there is (surprisingly, for some) a long, dark history of research - ethical and unethical, formal and informal, into this sector. You see, there was no ‘Operation Warp Speed’ or ‘Speed of Science’. For instance, one of the cited research studies from their article (Part 4) includes this extract from 2003:

Extract from Materials Research Society USA. Symposium C: Bio-Inspired Nanoscale Hybrid Systems: 29 May 2003 Source

Dehybridization and other interventions into elements of our DNA are often referred to within these archived references. I’m no scientist, but look at this slightly later, 2008 Research Report where the authors proudly report their experiments using a ‘nanoneedle’ and claim that:

“Our results indicate the potential applications of utilizing nanomaterials in detection, targeted cellular treatments and nanobiosensors in medical diagnostics to identify 'pro-disease' states. We have tested our biosensors for the detection of a cancer biomarker, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and have now shown high specificity and sensitivity on patient serum samples. These current results confirm the value and applications of these biosensors. (my emphasis)

It is interesting how the authors used the term ‘pro-disease’ which has connections with Chinese medicine. (Makes me wonder about the CCP influence). But the use of this frightening-sounding ‘nanoneedle’ has obviously gained ground over the past >16 years at, you guessed it - Harvard University’s Centre for Nanoscale Systems. Yes, coincidentally, this is ‘where it all happens’. This is an extract from 22 Sept 2008, where some authors inevitably had connections with Harvard:

Extract: How have these researchers progressed this line of enquiry?

What is “Nanoscale”?

You can enjoy some fun voyeurism by taking a virtual tour of Harvard’s Centre for Nanos, where you might come across this helpful poster outside someone’s office:

As you can see, nanoscale is defined as similar in size to a ‘virus’ or ‘DNA’. In this 2009 paper the authors stated further progress with this nanotech bioengineering. Once again, not one mention of any words like ‘risk’, ‘harms’ or ‘consequences’ in the report. I wonder also about what ethics applications were made for these studies? Here’s a quote from that 2009 release below:

Researchers at the University of Illinois [at Urbana-Champaign] have developed a membrane-penetrating nanoneedle for the targeted delivery of one or more molecules into the cytoplasm or the nucleus of living cells. In addition to ferrying tiny amounts of cargo, the nanoneedle can also be used as an electrochemical probe and as an optical biosensor.

"Nanoneedle-based delivery is a powerful new tool for studying biological processes and biophysical properties at the molecular level inside living cells," said Min-Feng Yu, a professor of mechanical science and engineering and corresponding author of a paper accepted for publication in Nano Letters, and posted on the journal's Web site.

In the paper, Yu and collaborators describe how they deliver, detect and track individual fluorescent quantum dots in a cell's cytoplasm and nucleus. The quantum dots can be used for studying molecular mechanics and physical properties inside cells. (my emphasis again)

Concerning, eh? But in 2013, the Journal of BioScience and BioEngineering seemed to think this approach was safe and effective. So much potential!

More recently, in 2020, Havard Uni published a news article about '“an exclusive license agreement with Harvard Office of Technology Development and NanoMosaic.” NanoMosaic certainly has some interesting Board members. This 2020 event was regarding development of…

“…screening tools based on functionalized ‘nanoneedles’ that may aid in a number of biomedical fields including the early detection of disease, prognostic monitoring, and biomarker discovery. The potential applications also include infectious disease monitoring, including for COVID-19, as the platform could be used to measure antibody levels in patient samples over time, providing important information on the development of, or decline in, a patient’s immunity to the novel coronavirus.”

There are plenty of research projects that highlight the progress of nanotech including nanoneedles and the like, for interventions into our DNA. This Harvard Wyss Inst piece caught my eye, because NanoTech can apparently reverse the aging process. (Maybe Klaus is a participant now they’ve moved on from mice)?

Screenshot from the abovementioned article

In conclusion, the research we have access to in only the ‘top of an iceberg’. Yet we continue to live in a divided world, where some people are in complete denial about what is Hidden in Plain Sight. Whether academics like AP Joan Donovan fighting what she believes (is told?) is ‘fake news’ are totally captured or willfully blind of the truth, it matters not. There is only so long these people can hold onto their nonsensical delusions.

What matters is that we all accept the scale and darkness of what we are being subjected to. What matters is that we agree that corrupt institutions like Harvard University - and most other institutions too - which have promoted and supported this unethical work for decades, need to be exposed and abandoned. What matters is sharing our knowledge that immensely profitable nanotech and ‘vaccines’ and the propaganda and censorship that protects these topics from close scrutiny, have overridden professional judgement, ethics and even common sense. Slowly but surely, those who need to be brought to account for this long-running, evil agenda, will face justice. Truth will win.