Monitoring the patient. Remember that these chips have a vanishingly smal
l amount of memory. If most of the chip is used up to store an identifying number, there are only about a million of those. The people giving the vaccinations don’t know which chip the patient is getting, thus, after the vaccination, there has to be another army of snoops running around figuring out which person got which chip, and therefore has which identifying number. And, again, you have to recruit a small army of people to do that, with all the attendant difficulties in keeping it secret.
Presumably, though, the GWF is monitoring whatever the detector in the chip is measuring, and that’s what the signal is about.
Controlling the patient. Again, there is hardly any memory. Are all patients going to be directed to do the same thing? If not, then there are only about a million different addresses to send to, and the association between who got
which number has to be determined before any one person can be given a personalized instruction. There’s a time limit to figure out that association, either 4 or 28 days. No matter what, there won’t be a lot of time to use the control function.
Suppose the instruction being given is given to all of the patients. Then there’s no need to develop the association between the number and the person. The useful life of the chip to control might then be the full 4 or 28 days. But if the instruction is given to all of the patients, wouldn’t a sudden shift in the vaccinated population be noticed? The goal was to vaccinate 70% of the population. Assume the population is evenly split on a particular question or behavior — 50% like blue, 50% like green. The instruction is given to like green. That would only affect the blue group, but now 70% of the blue side defects to green. That leaves only .5 * (1 – .7) = 15% on the blue side. That’s dramatic. That’s for an even split of the population. But what if the idea is to change the attitude of an unpopular idea? Suppose the instruction was to have the patient want to become a nudist. Let’s say only 4% approve of nudity. Now the number becomes 4% + .7*96% = 71% approve of nudity. That’s huge. So what dramatic change occurred? What giant change was there in spending habits? political ideas? religious affiliation?
I saw none. And remember, the unvaccinated population would have been unaffected, and would presumably be reliable observers of the change in the population around them.