Exploring Michael's Proposal: A Deeper Look into Evidence, Perception, and Institutional Capture

In response to a recent suggestion from Michael about how to verify evidence of synthetic bio-nanotechnology in pharmaceutical products, I find that it's worth taking a step back and examining the broader context and implications of such an approach. Michael has proposed a rigorous and controlled experiment to document the processes under tightly constrained conditions. While the suggestion has its merits, I believe there are critical points that need to be addressed to fully appreciate the existing evidence we already have—and why it might not be necessary to take the proposed route.

(to see the original thread please click here)

The Proposal: Documenting the Evidence Step by Step

Michael’s suggestion is clear: to conclusively document the potential for engineered influences in pharmaceutical products, he recommends starting from sample collection, placing it in a Faraday cage, and systematically altering environmental factors such as electromagnetic fields (EMF). The process would ideally involve live-streaming the experiment from beginning to end, with no edits. It's a logical proposal from the standpoint of scientific rigor, aiming to collect definitive evidence through tightly controlled, observable steps.

However, I believe that the evidence we need to assess the question of synthetic influence in pharmaceuticals—such as vaccines and other medications—is already present. Michael’s proposal, while thoughtful, fails to account for the wealth of data we already have through experiments and observations that are more easily accessible, without needing to restrict ourselves to such a narrow, time-consuming methodology.

Practical Challenges and Existing Evidence

Michael’s approach is appealing in its simplicity, but there are practical challenges with trying to "prove" synthetic influence in this way. The fact is, we are already observing highly organized, engineered structures within vaccines and other pharmaceutical products—structures that are not typically found in naturally occurring crystalline formations. In my own work, I’ve observed formations such as Crystal Fibre Assemblies (CFAs) and Circle-Rectangle Motifs (CRMs) through the process of Sessile Droplet Evaporation (SDE), using dark-field microscopy. These structures display intricate geometric precision and symmetry—features that are commonly associated with engineered systems, especially when we see them consistently across different pharmaceutical samples.

The image above is of a crystal formed after SDE from a drop of plain 2% lignocaine, taken at approximately 20x magnification in bright field, shows most of the identifiable complex features associated with synthetic crystals including multiple layers, inclusions, CRM’s (green arrows) and a CFA (red arrow) which is better shown in the second close-up image at 200x magnification utilising a green digital filter shown below:

Rather than trying to prove what is already evident through additional layers of experimentation, we should look at the patterns that are emerging and the broader context of these findings. The fact that these structures are appearing in products like vaccines, dental anesthetics, and even influenza shots is compelling evidence in itself. And while further experiments may offer additional insight, the current data strongly supports the conclusion that we are seeing engineered, self-assembling structures, likely influenced by advanced bio-nanotechnology.

The Rubin Vase: Perception and Interpretation of Evidence

In my article on perception and the Rubin Vase, I discussed how human understanding is often shaped by selective attention, and how the same data or phenomena can be interpreted in fundamentally different ways based on one's existing beliefs and perceptual framework. This concept is particularly relevant here. Michael’s request for more direct proof of synthetic influence echoes the "faces" perspective of the Rubin Vase—he’s seeing one interpretation of the evidence, focused on what he perceives to be a natural process, and dismissing the possibility of a more complex, engineered explanation.

However, those of us seeing the "vase"—the engineered patterns within these crystals—are guided not by blind belief but by years of documented evidence and experimental observation. The "faces" perspective, in this case, is not inherently wrong, but it misses the complexity and depth of the situation. To truly understand these phenomena, one must step outside the conventional narrative and allow for the possibility of self-assembling systems that exist within the interface of bio-nanotechnology, which I believe we are witnessing today.This brings us to the concept of perception—and how we interpret the evidence before us. The Rubin Vase is an optical illusion that illustrates the concept of figure-ground perception: it’s a bistable image that can be seen either as a white vase or two black faces, but never both simultaneously. This concept is useful when considering the way in which we process information and the narratives that shape our understanding of the world.

In the case of bio-nanotechnology, many researchers are like those who see only the “faces” of the Rubin Vase—they see the surface-level explanation of natural processes and assume that the apparent patterns in crystal formation must be naturally occurring. But for those of us who glimpse the “vase”—the deeper layers of meaning and context—what we see are unmistakable signs of engineered influences: patterns, symmetry, and organization that go beyond what is typical in nature. The challenge is that, like the Rubin Vase, these two perspectives are not just different; they are mutually exclusive.

Michael, in his current approach, might only be seeing the “faces” of the situation—the traditional narrative of natural processes. But there’s another layer of understanding here, one that speaks to the growing body of evidence showing that these processes may not be as natural as we once assumed. And this is where the conversation begins to break down, because when we start to ask deeper questions—questions about the influence of advanced technologies in shaping our world—we are met with resistance.

The Risk of Propaganda and Institutional Capture

I must also address the issue of vulnerability to propaganda and institutional capture. By clinging to the idea that natural processes alone account for these findings, researchers risk becoming complicit in the prevailing narrative, one that doesn’t allow for questions about synthetic influences to be raised. This is a form of intellectual and institutional capture—where even well-meaning experts become trapped in the confines of established thinking, dismissing emerging evidence that doesn’t fit within the traditional framework.

There is a wider cultural context here that cannot be ignored. Organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Club of Rome have long discussed the potential for technological advances to influence biological systems, including ideas around population control and technological manipulation. To dismiss the possibility that synthetic bio-nanotechnology could be playing a role in what we see in pharmaceuticals would ignore the broader context of these technological advances and the ongoing conversations about bioengineering, surveillance, and control. We are no longer living in a world where we can afford to ignore these questions.

The Importance of Open Inquiry and Questioning the Status Quo

Instead of trying to prove what we already know through rigid, controlled experiments, we should be encouraging open inquiry and embracing the evidence we have gathered so far. It’s essential to ask the right questions: Why are we seeing these geometric patterns in pharmaceutical products? Why are these same patterns appearing consistently across multiple products? What does this tell us about the role of bio-nanotechnology in shaping the materials we interact with every day?

Rather than seeing Michael’s suggestion as a definitive path forward, I would argue that it’s time to move beyond the need for "proof" in the traditional sense. We must embrace the evidence that is already before us and begin to think critically about the bigger picture—the wider implications of these findings, and the forces at play in the world around us.

Conclusion: Embracing the Evidence and Moving Forward

The suggestion to conduct yet another controlled experiment to “prove” the existence of synthetic bio-nanotechnology in pharmaceuticals misses the point. The evidence is already there, staring us in the face, if we are willing to look beyond the “faces” and into the “vase.” The presence of engineered structures in vaccines, medications, and other pharmaceutical products is undeniable. It’s time to stop resisting the implications of these findings and begin the work of understanding them in their full context.

By staying open to new evidence and interpretations, and by considering the broader implications of bio-nanotechnology, we can move toward a more complete understanding of the world around us. We must be willing to question the status quo and explore the reality that is emerging—one that is increasingly shaped by synthetic, engineered systems.

Thank you to Michael for sparking this conversation, and I encourage all researchers and individuals alike to continue questioning, looking, and exploring the world beyond the surface. Only through open dialogue and curiosity can we hope to uncover the truth.

Cheers,

David

PS All support gratefully appreciated.