Are Mind Control Patents Proof that Mind Control Works? ( pizzagate )

submitted by EffYouJohnPodesta

https://www.quora.com/Does-an-invention-have-to-be-proven-to-work-or-just-conceptually-feasible-to-be-patentable

Given the recent flurry of users on this board posting comments about all of the disinformation agents we've seen here I had to post this. I was reading some stuff someone said about Jem777 and Antarctica and Babylon etc. and how they said they thought it made pizzagate look ridiculous. I have no idea what she said about any of those topics but my mind immediately went to a few disinformation agents I knew of who were all trying to spread some story about Antarctica around the same time a couple of years ago. There are definitely some well known pizzagaters who also spread a lot of disinformation and it always pisses me off. It seems like every 6 months or so one of these people will recycle an old story that was either debunked or proven to be fraudulent and nobody ever pays attention to that at all, and they just keep posting it like it's new information, or like it never got disproven. I'm thinking of the fake memes of fabricated emails that don't exist, and other claims that just never seem to get accepted as debunked and then they just keep going.

So anyway, a while back I came across an article that claims all sorts of things are possible with mind control and the proof is in the fact that these inventions all have patents. I posted this here on the forum: https://www.voat.co/v/pizzagate/2372339

Well I was looking up another product completely unrelated, that I know to be making exaggerated claims about its efficacy, and where they define their own successes into the efficacy studies, and I started thinking that I wonder if any of those mind control patents might have been filed in an exaggerated way to scare people.

I definitely think mind control is real, but I wanted to post this anyway because when I was reading through those mind control patents a long time ago, many of them seemed impossible. I think it would not be beneath someone in the CIA to file a fake patent to create fear.

If anyone has experience proving any of these patents are actually effective, I would be very interested to read the study or the paper. I know a lot can be done while someone is under the direct control of a shrink or handler and they are slipped drugs and exposed to certain stimuli and then studied, but I don't know anything about the alleged remote technologies or other triggers.

Thoughts?

Vindicator

the proof is in the fact that these inventions all have patents

I think "proof" is a sticky term for this situation, EYJP, mainly because Rense has taken stuff out of context. You'll note he hasn't provided the link to the patent, or the details about what the patented devise is to be used for. If it really supported his premise, don't you think he'd give you the real goods?

Using transcranial magnetic stimulation can be a powerful way to treat medically resistant major depression -- i.e. bring abnormal brain waves back into a more normal state. I had a good friend -- a child sex abuse victim in fact -- who lost her career in journalism after developing major depression and nothing worked to treat it for six years. She did TMS, and was better in less than six months. But Rense isn't telling you that's what that patent is for.

Same with the patent for stopping auditory hallucinations. I would bet a grand that patent is designed to treat tinnitus -- an auditory hallucination millions of people deal with due to hearing loss every day that works something like phantom limb syndrome. But Rense isn't telling you what it's for . He's dropping it with no context or link, hoping the reader's confirmation bias will make them see in the few words he's provided what HE wants you to see.

I'd say that thread you linked in the other post is pretty good evidence Rense is Fake News/disinfo.

A true research post on this would involve looking at specific patents you think are mind control related, and examining the full patent on each one to weigh whether the patent is evidence minds can be controlled with devices or substances.

Since the main evidence for your thesis is the unsourced Rense material, and he takes a disingenuous approach, I'm going to go ahead and give this the "Possible Disinfo" flair.

EffYouJohnPodesta

The ones you mention are most likely medical devices that are actually in use as medical devices governed by the FDA regulation and would actually work for what they're patented for. I'm talking about any that might not be FDA approved medical devices, but there are rumors out there about mind control devices and my point was that just because someone applied for a patent doesn't mean the product really works like people think it will.

I might be a Scientologist named L Ron Hubbard wanting to patent my E meter, and I get a patent on it, and I tell people it works a certain way to detect thetans when really all it does is lie detection. It can have a real patent, but that doesn't mean my thetans are being found out.

When you file a patent application you make certain claims and you provide your diagrams and so forth, and if it seems useful and there's nothing else out there that is identical, you can get the patent. You have to have some type of improvement or difference, if you're making something similar to someone else's intellectual property. Basically I'm saying patents do not equal "the product works the way it's advertised."

If you see the quora article I posted a couple of lawyers explained why patents don't always mean that the product works. I'm not a lawyer yet but that was my basic point in posting this.

Vindicator

Thank you for the clarification. One good habit for making posts clear and readable is to write a sentence for each link that says why you're including it in the post, just like you did in this clarification: "the quora article I posted a couple of lawyers explained why patents don't always mean that the product works."

EffYouJohnPodesta

I sent you a message. The point of this post was to point out that Rense might be disinformation. Could you remove the flair so that people don't think I'm deliberately posting disinformation? Maybe put it on the old post from before I thought harder about it.

Vindicator

I've removed the flair. Thank you for clarifying. :-)

Factfinder2

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/qualifying-patent-faq.html

According to nolo.com, utility patents (as opposed to [nonfunctional] design or plant patents) must "have some usefulness (utility), no matter how trivial."

...

"To fulfill this requirement, the invention must work, at least in theory. Thus, a new approach to manufacturing superconducting materials may qualify for a patent if it has a sound theoretical basis, even if it hasn't yet been shown to work in practice."

carmencita

Boy if that doesn't sound like a runaround. Perfect for Big Pharma. Possibly they are working on this MK project right now or already have done so. Or it's all a fabrication as the OP says.

EffYouJohnPodesta

There are all kinds of products not under the FDA's jurisdiction that do have patents. Sometimes things you would think should be a medical device aren't, so they can be designed by whomever, and get a patent, and it would be similar to a supplement maker selling something that falls outside of the FDA, it cannot be regulated. The efficacy may come into question from anyone curious enough to question it. But the real litigation would be from competitors using similar designs and getting patents and having the patent challenged under intellectual property laws.

carmencita

They also have been allowed to create medicines without the proper seal of approval. So all kinds of things are out here. Who knows what.