Thought the COVID “Vaccine” was Rushed? Get Ready for Brain Implants

When it comes to our health, we like to play it safer than sorrier. Most of us won’t take a medicine until we trust it. We count on experts to tell us the risks of a drug or procedure, assuring us all will be fine.

But what happens when our experts can’t be trusted? And what happens if everything won’t be fine?

In May this past year, the FDA granted Elon Musk’s Neuralink approval for implanting AI chips into our brains. This clears the path for experimentation on actual people—real life folks like you and me.

Unprecedented drug approvals and even medical device implantation are not new. Experiments with electrical impulses affecting the heart and other muscles go back centuries—even millennia, and the first artificial pacemaker was placed in a human over 70 years ago.

So, how might Neuralink differ from a pacemaker?

Well, for one thing, a Neuralink chip would have active, not passive capabilities. (A pacemaker operates mechanically, sending electrical signals to the heart to help it do what it naturally should. And the heart has one basic function: to pump blood.)

But the brain is much more complex—and so is controlling it.

Already, Musk has expressed a far-reaching vision for Neuralink. It includes overriding the brain’s “malfunctioning” electrical impulses and controlling everything from muscle movements to vision to memory access.

Yet unlike with a pacemaker, brain programming complexities present greater challenges—not to mention, major dangers, and threats. Also, unlike a (real) vaccine which places a foreign biological agent into our bodies and then lets the natural process of fighting it take over, a Neuralink chip introduces something both unnatural and uncontrollable by the host.

 

Aside from the obvious and almost sci-fi-like risks of introducing implants into our bodies controllable by other humans (or even AI), we have little to no understanding of the long-term dangers and side effects such technology will undoubtedly introduce.

Worse, our caution wall is going down. Big time.

Cases in point: It took 22 years for Ibuprofen to go from a newly patented experimental drug to an over-the-counter medicine. (It would still take another 13 years before you could pick it up at any retail store.)

This is as it should be.

According to Johns Hopkins University, the average time for developing a vaccine ranges from 5 to 10 years. Under urgent, pressing conditions, that timeline can be fast-tracked. In the case of the Polio vaccine in the 1950s, that process took just two years. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA pushed it to just nine months.

So, how much can the public really know about the risks and dangers in that timeframe? You know that answer already.

In our brave new world, sweeping changes are coming at us at a breakneck pace. We’re becoming ever more accustomed to such timeliness when it comes to medical innovations.

Unfortunately, we can’t be bothered to wait and see what could go wrong.

The truth is, it will take years before we grok the full impact of our rush to develop and distribute the COVID-19 vaccines. (In fact, good luck finding reliable data on the subject!)

Now the question is: is that disturbing precedent setting us up for something worse with Neuralink?

In a word? Yes.

Unfortunately, if our “experts” on brain implantation want us to see something bad about this new product, we will see it. If they don’t, we won’t.

One more thing.

Pacemakers need replacing every 5 to 7 years. How often will you need upgrades for your Neuralink hardware/software should you decide to get it? And what if the side-effects harm you in unimaginable ways? Or your kids?

At least with a pacemaker the worst that can happen is your heart stops. With implanted, mind-controlling brain chips, are you prepared for possibilities that may be worse than death? Scary as that question is, you must consider it.

Your future and your children’s future will soon depend on it.