Have you seen videos of Sabrina Wallace? She’s a savant that comes off a little heavy handed but she talks at great length about this topic because she’s a computer network engineer and she describes it as the “human internet of bodies” network… check her out on Rumble… she comes across as very annoyed, because she’s been talking about this for years and no one’s listening.
She recently went on a series of long rants against David A. Hughes, in response to his presentation at the recent Omniwar symposium (subtitled 'battle for the brain'). He responded with a detailed rebuttal on his latest substack article:
Lab concoctions have been designed to mimick what a natural virus is supposed to do and they've worked for over a century that way using bacteria,fungus,mold, poisons,DNA RNA,much more so it's irrelevant largely if natural virus ever existed or not ,artificial ones have existed since inception of the term .Just cuz there's iver a dozen causes of flu like symptoms doesn't mean there not using .ost of them plus primarily overreactiion to regular flu symptoms as well caused by ..well who cares at that point! Artificial virus mimickers exist a very long time..bio labs same doing evil against populations,not so much in country to country war as that would be a threat to the elites health potentially with misses headed their way ie WW1 and WW2 happened..it's culling there all about.
In that case you should be just fine ingesting every single BIOLAB CONCOCTIONS out there..would you mind filming that ,I need a good laugh Mr.Virus issue is most important thing in existence and I would never distract attention from culling biolabs everywhere by freaking on virus don't meet contagion specifications some quack required a century ago..No way you could be a shill driving attentions away from Biolabs and mad scientists,right(they'd never try that in media would they? No their to moral!..how relieved am I folks!?
Is best example of what your saying Serrata Marcescens experiment over SF where avg particulates level reached over a million per person,most transfered indoors by clothes, hair, shoes shedding they found sickening many,killing a few ar least.
With a secret adjustment to Serrata Marcescens all million would have died within 36 hours military confirmed.Shedding is a form of non virus contagion legally and in vaccine patents same..In short,only tards now believe your virus non existence is key to universe ramblings obviously meant to protect vaccine particles shedding to vaccinate others industry (contagious!)and bio labs particle critical mass to infection/transferabllity cullings. . you very bad big phony, enough with your nothing transferable even by particles nonsense,were hip to the why of your over obsessions here!! It's over,your caught ,now just confess you work for the pharmas secretly and you'll have all that culling weight off your shoulders,it'll do you some good and make for my best story too, ok? - Not too much whimpering though please!
Typical obfuscatory response. Just a ramble. No evidence offered. There is none.
3 years and no attempts to claim.
And now I am starting the Virus Confirmation Fund.
There’s some pretty high profile pledgers already. When there’s half a billion on offer and still nobody claiming it perhaps people will start to take notice.
In the meantime, shame on you
You’re acting as a useful idiot for the perpetrators
Fascinating as always. It would be incredible if there was another liquid substance that had other found structures that could be used as a comparison control. Just to show the difference between "organic" crystals and "self-assembling nano-tech." That would be very helpful.
crystals in a non-synthetic state would not have the complex morphology that we see in particular CRM's (circle rectangle motifs) and do not get more complex over time. They also typically only form when the solution is almost dry.
David, I have been following your interesting research for a long time... But there is something in this article that has left me perplexed after reading the reference you make to Fuellmich... Do you still believe in the theory of supposed pathogenic viruses responsible for diseases? Could you please clarify this point?
fuellmich did not necessarily mean virus as a real entity - he meant the fear of "the virus" was brought in to justify the vaccine. I think we all understand here by now that viruses do not exist.
A truly scientific mind is an open mind. Just too many anecdotes about the flu, regular flu, passing from a neighbor to the next. Just keeping my mind open.
I think it safer to say that the COVID virus does not exist (well, they say they have isolated it, but really just a fragment of it, or supposedly it).
Do we yet know that they are actually broadcasting information, or are they simply broadcast-ready or -enabled? That is, are they transmitters or merely receivers?
The reason I ask is because not all bluetooth-discoverable devices are autonomous, as I think is the prevailing thought on this nefarious nanotech (i.e., that it's autonomously sending information from our bodies to some sort of external device).
My expertise is in the biological sciences, so all this tech stuff is Greek to me. But I'm thinking, for example, of the wireless keyboard I'm using to type this. (Yes, I know; I know... but I hate a cluttered workspace.)
As I understand it, my wireless keyboard and mouse periodically, and at regular intervals, send out signals, looking to sync up with my laptop or other compatible device. My keyboard is not autonomously typing; it simply looks for a hookup and then acts as a wireless conduit between me and my laptop.
And it does not work in reverse: my laptop cannot type anything into me using my wireless keyboard.
I'm thinking that these nanotech objects you so thoroughly documented in the Pfizer injectable are likely to be kinda the same as my wireless keyboard and mouse.
Yes? No? And how do we not know this yet? It does seem to be the crux of the matter.
Great question, Chris—and I see where you're coming from.
You're right that devices like keyboards send out Bluetooth signals periodically, but those signals usually contain a registered manufacturer ID (OUI)—like Logitech or Microsoft. The signals I’ve been tracking don’t have that. They’re unregistered, and what’s stranger is that they appear in tightly structured clusters, often at fixed intervals like exactly 2000ms or 275ms. That’s not typical of ordinary devices, which behave more randomly.
So while your wireless keyboard is passively waiting for input, these emissions behave more like a system talking to itself—quietly, regularly, and without leaving a name.
Yes, I hear ya, although I was under the impression that the bluetooth-enabled devices such as my wireless keyboard and mouse are very predictable in their reaching out for connection, until a connection is made, at which point they only transmit information when activated (i.e., when I type or click).
The unidentified nature of these MAC addresses, and the fact that they are completely obscured from those of us with Apple devices (something I learned here, by the way, and thanks for that!), is disturbing on its face. Why the need for not just secrecy (e.g., proprietary commercial tech) but obscurity -- no, obfuscation?
BTW, I'm mildly entertained by the fact that you keep using 2000 ms, when it would be simpler to just say 2 sec. These things are emitting a signal every 2 seconds. If they're emitting biomedical data, that doesn't sound like an interval that has much relevance to human physiology.
yes but the software records the interval to the millisecond so one of my most structured triplet series had three MAC's with packet interval of 1999ms, similar signal strength and entropy of 2.86 across all three. More recently I have found triplets at 110ms and 275ms so ms is easier... in answer to your other comment why indeed?
The reason I ask about the frequency is that I wonder about the energy source for these surreptitiously implanted nano-electronics. If it is us, then there must be some biorhythm that they're hacking into, for want of a better word -- one that expresses sufficient outrage at the audacity... !!! Other than heart beat, what other biological frequencies might they be using as their energy source? Nerve impulses are measured in ms. Muscle contractility, too. Hmm... the possibilities might be inexhaustible. Our microbiota? Sunlight? The EMF soup in which we're all awash these days?
I believe previous experiments have shown these MAC addresses to be intermittent and said intermittence is alleged to be a security mechanism in which the 'devices' (for lack of a better term) will put themselves in 'lockdown' mode when they detect an attempt to connect to them from an unauthorised source.
I found the correct name of the phenomenon t hat I have written about before, namely morgellons. Dr Ana Milhaucea will know a lot more as a colleague of hers has explored and written a book on them, on t he webb too.
From what I've seen, it appears people transmit Bluetooth LE advertising data along with the MAC address..
The advertising data packet is ALWAYS one of the following 4 data packets;
0x07FF4C0012020000
0x07FF4C0012020001
0x07FF4C0012020002
0x07FF4C0012020003
This data is nearly identical to the Air Tag data packet (when in "maintained" mode)
I use nRF Connect on Android for scanning as it displays the raw data packets.
I have also confirmed this using a BLE sniffer and wireshark. This is a typical packet decoded using Apple Continuity Protocol dissectors found on github..
Have you seen videos of Sabrina Wallace? She’s a savant that comes off a little heavy handed but she talks at great length about this topic because she’s a computer network engineer and she describes it as the “human internet of bodies” network… check her out on Rumble… she comes across as very annoyed, because she’s been talking about this for years and no one’s listening.
Look past that and concentrate on the information
We have been listening, but she chooses not to engage...
David I have a side contact for Sabrina ..she runs a biofield practice group every sunday
She recently went on a series of long rants against David A. Hughes, in response to his presentation at the recent Omniwar symposium (subtitled 'battle for the brain'). He responded with a detailed rebuttal on his latest substack article:
https://dhughes.substack.com/p/a-nasty-piece-of-work
He comes across as vastly more credible.
For objectivity's sake, this is the link to Sabrina's rant, or one of them, against Hughes. https://rumble.com/v64j45s-the-nano-bot-digital-ai-apocalypse-is-upon-us.-sabrina-wallace-reacts-to-ry.html
There was no virus though. The vaccines were pushed on the back of myth.
Lab concoctions have been designed to mimick what a natural virus is supposed to do and they've worked for over a century that way using bacteria,fungus,mold, poisons,DNA RNA,much more so it's irrelevant largely if natural virus ever existed or not ,artificial ones have existed since inception of the term .Just cuz there's iver a dozen causes of flu like symptoms doesn't mean there not using .ost of them plus primarily overreactiion to regular flu symptoms as well caused by ..well who cares at that point! Artificial virus mimickers exist a very long time..bio labs same doing evil against populations,not so much in country to country war as that would be a threat to the elites health potentially with misses headed their way ie WW1 and WW2 happened..it's culling there all about.
There’s no such thing as a natural virus!
No. They have never made anything transmissible or pathogenic in a lab.
There’s no such thing as a pathogenic microbe of any kind.
Why are you pushing their PsyOps for then?
£14,000 to you for any evidence any infectious biological pathogen has ever existed.
Man-made, natural … it’s utter garbage.
Their only power is when people believe it
Anyone spreading the propaganda for them is helping them. That’s you!
In that case you should be just fine ingesting every single BIOLAB CONCOCTIONS out there..would you mind filming that ,I need a good laugh Mr.Virus issue is most important thing in existence and I would never distract attention from culling biolabs everywhere by freaking on virus don't meet contagion specifications some quack required a century ago..No way you could be a shill driving attentions away from Biolabs and mad scientists,right(they'd never try that in media would they? No their to moral!..how relieved am I folks!?
Is best example of what your saying Serrata Marcescens experiment over SF where avg particulates level reached over a million per person,most transfered indoors by clothes, hair, shoes shedding they found sickening many,killing a few ar least.
With a secret adjustment to Serrata Marcescens all million would have died within 36 hours military confirmed.Shedding is a form of non virus contagion legally and in vaccine patents same..In short,only tards now believe your virus non existence is key to universe ramblings obviously meant to protect vaccine particles shedding to vaccinate others industry (contagious!)and bio labs particle critical mass to infection/transferabllity cullings. . you very bad big phony, enough with your nothing transferable even by particles nonsense,were hip to the why of your over obsessions here!! It's over,your caught ,now just confess you work for the pharmas secretly and you'll have all that culling weight off your shoulders,it'll do you some good and make for my best story too, ok? - Not too much whimpering though please!
Just read all your reply
You’re a loony!
Shame on you for your Ad Hominem
You only do the Ad Hominem silliness because you are unable to offer any evidence it’s pathetic
Anybody pretending viruses exist at this stage is either very very very very lazy and stupid or
Something more sinister.
Computer virus Timv
I'm the particle transmission,shedding from vaxxes guy,I don't promote viruses exist,all know that liar
I have never heard of you. I’ve been immersed for four years 10 hours a day.
I’ve looked into pretty much everything and everyone .
I have never heard of you or your 30 subscribers .
All I know is that if you are pushing the shedding myth
You are nobody’s friend, but the perpetrators .
Typical obfuscatory response. Just a ramble. No evidence offered. There is none.
3 years and no attempts to claim.
And now I am starting the Virus Confirmation Fund.
There’s some pretty high profile pledgers already. When there’s half a billion on offer and still nobody claiming it perhaps people will start to take notice.
In the meantime, shame on you
You’re acting as a useful idiot for the perpetrators
Will you accept computer virus.
Tim I don't want money but this is a computer code.
You're still thinking medical. Think computers and nano batteries
Tim that's not actually true but it's kind of irrelevant. This is a code..computer virus
Tim think in terms of computer viruses not biological.
There's clues in the bible. Python program the serpent crosses language barriers
It’s all smoke and mirrors. Fear is their only real weapon.
Do you have any data, or have you formed any opinion, yet on whether any of the wearable EMF protection devices are of use in this situation?
That's a very good question and I am thinking about that too but still working on that!
I've measured several.
The gold stickers work, rubber bands no
It targets the back of your cranium, so theoretically a few type hat lined with emf material should work
Other considerations.
1. 4G and 5G systems have ultra sensitive receiving antennae and can pick up minute signals from miles away in the 2.4 Ghz range.
2. These BLE signals packets are longer than the MAC 6 bytes so the payload beyond the MAC address could be where the actual messages will be found.
3. Private key cyptography may be in play and the public does not know the keys used to decrypt these messages.
Thank you.. I had considered longer strings of data but not the rest. Cheers.
Fascinating as always. It would be incredible if there was another liquid substance that had other found structures that could be used as a comparison control. Just to show the difference between "organic" crystals and "self-assembling nano-tech." That would be very helpful.
For me the presence of certain crystal features and changes over time is what distinguishs them. Please see my paper for details
So, say, "crystals" in a placebo (totally organic) mixture would disappear quickly? Is that it?
crystals in a non-synthetic state would not have the complex morphology that we see in particular CRM's (circle rectangle motifs) and do not get more complex over time. They also typically only form when the solution is almost dry.
Thanks, David. And do these "synthetic crystals" emit any ... electrical signals? Or things of that nature? Is that testable?
David, I have been following your interesting research for a long time... But there is something in this article that has left me perplexed after reading the reference you make to Fuellmich... Do you still believe in the theory of supposed pathogenic viruses responsible for diseases? Could you please clarify this point?
No that was the quote .. maybe I should have paraphrased it "the pandemic" instead of "the virus*
I am looking at others chasing that rabbit hole and the information they interpret.
I am thankful that David is chasing the microscopy and MAC address rabbit holes.
fuellmich did not necessarily mean virus as a real entity - he meant the fear of "the virus" was brought in to justify the vaccine. I think we all understand here by now that viruses do not exist.
A truly scientific mind is an open mind. Just too many anecdotes about the flu, regular flu, passing from a neighbor to the next. Just keeping my mind open.
I think it safer to say that the COVID virus does not exist (well, they say they have isolated it, but really just a fragment of it, or supposedly it).
Fascinating information, thanks for
Sharing such valuable research!
"broadcasting a dynamic biodigital status report"
Do we yet know that they are actually broadcasting information, or are they simply broadcast-ready or -enabled? That is, are they transmitters or merely receivers?
I think the system is operational.... but as Mateo likes to say "we are waiting for the whistleblower"
The reason I ask is because not all bluetooth-discoverable devices are autonomous, as I think is the prevailing thought on this nefarious nanotech (i.e., that it's autonomously sending information from our bodies to some sort of external device).
My expertise is in the biological sciences, so all this tech stuff is Greek to me. But I'm thinking, for example, of the wireless keyboard I'm using to type this. (Yes, I know; I know... but I hate a cluttered workspace.)
As I understand it, my wireless keyboard and mouse periodically, and at regular intervals, send out signals, looking to sync up with my laptop or other compatible device. My keyboard is not autonomously typing; it simply looks for a hookup and then acts as a wireless conduit between me and my laptop.
And it does not work in reverse: my laptop cannot type anything into me using my wireless keyboard.
I'm thinking that these nanotech objects you so thoroughly documented in the Pfizer injectable are likely to be kinda the same as my wireless keyboard and mouse.
Yes? No? And how do we not know this yet? It does seem to be the crux of the matter.
Great question, Chris—and I see where you're coming from.
You're right that devices like keyboards send out Bluetooth signals periodically, but those signals usually contain a registered manufacturer ID (OUI)—like Logitech or Microsoft. The signals I’ve been tracking don’t have that. They’re unregistered, and what’s stranger is that they appear in tightly structured clusters, often at fixed intervals like exactly 2000ms or 275ms. That’s not typical of ordinary devices, which behave more randomly.
So while your wireless keyboard is passively waiting for input, these emissions behave more like a system talking to itself—quietly, regularly, and without leaving a name.
Yes, I hear ya, although I was under the impression that the bluetooth-enabled devices such as my wireless keyboard and mouse are very predictable in their reaching out for connection, until a connection is made, at which point they only transmit information when activated (i.e., when I type or click).
The unidentified nature of these MAC addresses, and the fact that they are completely obscured from those of us with Apple devices (something I learned here, by the way, and thanks for that!), is disturbing on its face. Why the need for not just secrecy (e.g., proprietary commercial tech) but obscurity -- no, obfuscation?
BTW, I'm mildly entertained by the fact that you keep using 2000 ms, when it would be simpler to just say 2 sec. These things are emitting a signal every 2 seconds. If they're emitting biomedical data, that doesn't sound like an interval that has much relevance to human physiology.
yes but the software records the interval to the millisecond so one of my most structured triplet series had three MAC's with packet interval of 1999ms, similar signal strength and entropy of 2.86 across all three. More recently I have found triplets at 110ms and 275ms so ms is easier... in answer to your other comment why indeed?
The reason I ask about the frequency is that I wonder about the energy source for these surreptitiously implanted nano-electronics. If it is us, then there must be some biorhythm that they're hacking into, for want of a better word -- one that expresses sufficient outrage at the audacity... !!! Other than heart beat, what other biological frequencies might they be using as their energy source? Nerve impulses are measured in ms. Muscle contractility, too. Hmm... the possibilities might be inexhaustible. Our microbiota? Sunlight? The EMF soup in which we're all awash these days?
Yes the Russian hackers showed us.
The Medicare records
Thanks for this David.
I believe previous experiments have shown these MAC addresses to be intermittent and said intermittence is alleged to be a security mechanism in which the 'devices' (for lack of a better term) will put themselves in 'lockdown' mode when they detect an attempt to connect to them from an unauthorised source.
https://rumble.com/v2ag19o-big-reset-movie-nanotech-in-the-c19-injections.html
Have you observed something similar in your experiments?
no not at all, but having said that I have not tried to connect to them...
I have but the best person to talk to is lulu
David this is not the earliest version.
The one before this was polyvm vinyl fluoride and they tested queciten nori.
I have the paper. If you'd like it youll need to email it.
Look at edible and injectable batteries.
Listen to lulu, they know what's going on.
Thanks.
Are the MAC addresses constant or intermittent in nature based on your own observations?
Intermittent I think but I can't be definitive on that
They change every 15 minutes. They are all 12digit Mac adfresses
Synthetic proteins, as I have observed before, can act at human-machine interface:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/a-breakthrough-in-how-proteins-are
I found the correct name of the phenomenon t hat I have written about before, namely morgellons. Dr Ana Milhaucea will know a lot more as a colleague of hers has explored and written a book on them, on t he webb too.
Yep. This is the Abomination of Desolation leading up to Great Tribulation. Body snatchers. Big War is coming.
Have you tried introducing some of the CDB or whats used for injections to see if you can get a MAC coming from an external source like a slide?
yes, and I think we have but that's another story which I will publish shortly
Please do, much appreciated
David the colloidal gold does work but so does pushing back against the biofield attack
For someone trying to cut through the noise and tell you all we've isolated the people who are emitting a signal from this is bloody frustrating.
My email is connectorange@protonmail.com
We can map out people emitting signals ..read mine and lulus other comments
Hi I've been scanning in Perth, WA for 3 years..
From what I've seen, it appears people transmit Bluetooth LE advertising data along with the MAC address..
The advertising data packet is ALWAYS one of the following 4 data packets;
0x07FF4C0012020000
0x07FF4C0012020001
0x07FF4C0012020002
0x07FF4C0012020003
This data is nearly identical to the Air Tag data packet (when in "maintained" mode)
I use nRF Connect on Android for scanning as it displays the raw data packets.
I have also confirmed this using a BLE sniffer and wireshark. This is a typical packet decoded using Apple Continuity Protocol dissectors found on github..
Bluetooth Low Energy Link Layer
Access Address: 0x8e89bed6
Packet Header: 0x0e42 (PDU Type: ADV_NONCONN_IND, TxAdd: Random)
.... 0010 = PDU Type: 0x2 ADV_NONCONN_IND
...0 .... = Reserved: 0
..0. .... = Reserved: 0
.1.. .... = Tx Address: Random
0... .... = Reserved: 0
Length: 14
Advertising Address: ce:ba:3e:81:e6:ab (ce:ba:3e:81:e6:ab)
Advertising Data
Manufacturer Specific
Length: 7
Type: Manufacturer Specific (0xff)
Company ID: Apple, Inc. (0x004c)
Apple Continuity Protocol
Find My
Tag: Find My (0x12)
Length: 0x02
Status: Owner did not connect within key rotation period (15 min.) (0x00)
Unknown: 0x03
CRC: 0xa406
Some additional info;
The MAC addresses change every 15 mins according to the resolvable private address standards, soon to be 'upgraded'..
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/bluetooth-61-enhances-privacy-with-randomized-rpa-timing/
https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/772710
This makes it fun
David please listen. We are on our third app
We now have the humans filtered and on a map