A Nasty Piece of Work

Sabrina Wallace's gratuitously abusive and wildly inaccurate hit piece against me reveals her true colors

Preamble

In July 2024, Sabrina Wallace posted a video in response to an interview I had done with Maryann Gebauer. This was around the time I was beginning my foray into electromagnetic warfare, and Wallace apparently wanted to recommend some sources for me to look at.

I reciprocated by writing a reply to Wallace’s video, which, to my surprise, became the most popular article on my Substack for several months. In it, I pointed out certain things that Wallace and I appear to have in common, I went through the literature that she had mentioned (grouping it into categories), and I concluded with a few questions/reservations:

Perhaps I need to understand her work in greater depth, but I am not persuaded by claims that “Engineers are already logging into you and watching your neurons in real time” or that “You’re connected to the internet — straight up, straight on. Somebody has a remote for you, and they’re not going to give it up.” The evidence Wallace cites, troubling as it is, does not seem to me to substantiate such claims.

If it were true that the “bioelectrical divisions” had already hacked everyone’s “bioelectric code,” then it would already be game over. What need would there be to inject as many people as possible with so-called “mRNA vaccines,” or for Executive Orders permitting technologies capable of writing circuitry for cells? Why has the network, which is itself the weapon, not already begun exterminating opponents of technocracy in large numbers?

Two months later, I became aware that Wallace had published another video in response to my reply. I watched it, but did not think that the questions posed at the end of my piece had been adequately addressed or answered. Busy with other projects, including the first Omniwar symposium, I let it go and did not think any more of it.

Wallace’s Hit Piece On Me

The second Omniwar symposium took place a week ago, on April 26, 2025. After months of planning, marketing, researching, and producing content, it was a relief when it was finally over, and I felt a sense of satisfaction afterwards.

That sense of satisfaction was quickly taken away from me, however, when I came across a two-hour, 36-minute long video, titled “CHD Fraud,” barely one hour after the end of the symposium. It was by Sabrina Wallace.

Mostly centered on my presentation, it alleged that the entire symposium was one giant fraud, with Children’s Health Defense responsible for it.

That is a slanderous allegation, which may be of interest to the CHD legal team. In fact, our symposium had nothing to with CHD, other than that they kindly agreed to live-stream it.

The speed with which the video was released indicates that it was a pre-meditated hit piece against me in particular. It was simply not possible to listen to the five-hour symposium, process the material, and produce a considered response so quickly.

Indeed, the first presenter, Patrick Wood, is not mentioned at all in Wallace’s video, which begins with me as the second presenter. Lissa Johnson and Daniel Broudy, who presented third and fourth, are mentioned briefly by Wallace, but it is very clear that I am the primary focus of her attack.

What happened, then, since the cordial dealings that Wallace and I had last July, to result in this gratuitously vindictive attack? Is it simply that I do not take her word on bioelectrical engineering as gospel? It is anyone’s guess.

Wallace’s two-hour 36-minute video was followed up the next day by a five-hour and 45-minute video title “CHD Obfuscation Data,” and then the following day by a three-hour and 12-minute video. This seems somewhat obsessive, given that my presentation was only 55 minutes long. I have not bothered to watch the other two videos, given how far off the mark the first one is.

Let us take a look, then, at what Wallace has to say about me in that first video.

The Abuse Begins

Wallace immediately brands my presentation a “shit show,” blames me (repeatedly) for giving a single interview to Alex Jones (ignoring the other 60+ interviews I have given), and claims “this man is a scholarly fraud” (01:40).

That’s quite a lot to read into the opening minutes of my presentation. The pre-meditation is self-evident. I could have said anything and I would have been given the same treatment.

The reason Wallace was able to publish her video so quickly is because she was commenting live as my presentation went out. In other words, she was not taking any time to digest its content properly. Instead, as we will see, she picked up on occasional words, phrases, images, or claims, twisted what I said, and spewed invectives based on falsehoods and positions I never held.

Bi-directional Brain Interfaces

Wallace claims that bi-directional brain interfaces are scalable because they were first trialed in 2015. She provides no evidence to show that they are in mass production, however. In contrast, I cite a 2019 peer-reviewed study claiming that they are not, and will not be, scalable in their current form. Who should we believe?

Wallace claims that I “lied” that there are no bi-directional brain computer interfaces. However, I never made that claim. Nor does she provide any evidence that there are any. Contrast her approach with the more helpful input from another viewer, drawing my attention to this article from February 2025:

If this piece of evidence is true, then bidirectional BCIs are something very recent, at least in the open world. Our knowledge is thereby advanced, rather than trying to put words in my mouth.

As evidence of the existence of bidirectional BCIs, Wallace cites this paper:

This epitomizes a key flaw in her thinking, namely, flashing up papers such as this as evidence that certain technologies already exist. “Describing” a bidirectional BCI does not mean that one exists. In fact, the paper is a review chapter, and one only has to read the abstract to find

In this chapter, we review the neuroscience of somatosensation, the history of sensory feedback in BCI applications, specifically for restoration of hand function and cutaneous sensations, and describe additional work that needs to be completed to make bidirectional BCI a clinical reality (my emphasis).

In other words, bidirectional BCI is not a clinical reality, according to the authors. Wallace is wrong.

The Scattergun Approach

“How do you think the schoolchildren are being tutored by agentic AI, if they can’t read their own brain waves?,” Wallace asks (02:40). Are they? A reference or two would have been helpful, but in any case, I did not mention education in my presentation.

The criticisms simply fly out, scatter-gun-style, without any proper thought or consideration.

Three minutes in, Wallace mentions “those dudes on the Netflix, talking about how we can pick up your EEG using the Wifi and put it back together with machine learning.” What is she talking about? Should we believe an alleged Netflix programme that Wifi is reading our brain waves? “Those dudes on the Netflix” are obviously not a credible source.

Remember, the whole point of my presentation, and that of Lissa Johnson, was to think carefully about what we do and do not know — the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns. When navigating an area as epistemically challenging as this, maximum precision is required, not shooting from the hip, using any source that springs to mind as ammunition.

My “Good Friends”

As early as the second minute of her video, Wallace claims that I am “counterintelligence,” part of a network “working together, all getting paid money” (02:08) — essentially, the TWC network identified by Amazing Polly. No evidence is provided of this, nor is it true.

After five minutes, Wallace establishes that I am a

total fraud, easily debunkable, because of products that are on sale, and that’s without getting into the military side and development. So why lie about it? Because his good friends are all selling products like you can cleanse, even said the nano’s not provable in human… So, tell me how this helps you not continue to inject children again?

What healthcare products have you ever seen me try to push or sell? Who are my “good friends” that are selling such products? Again, this leads back to the misconception — and deliberate smear — that I am part of TWC or some similar network. Unsurprisingly, Wallace does not name any of my “good friends,” because it is all fantasy.

Later on, Wallace asks:

Now, those of you who are watching, do you understand now what counter-intelligence is? Who is Hughes friends with? Who is he supporting? The people on that list with the Coulson group and all the rest of them? They’re all making money off fraudulent products that don’t do shit to help people, because it’s electrical” (21:40).

That is three times in 21 minutes, plus the various Alex Jones references, that the same innuendo has been deployed, and this time the “Coulson group” (TWC) is finally named.

But what if I don’t have any “friends” intellectually? What if my only concern is the pursuit of the truth? The incessant resort to my “friends” amounts to ad hominem.

For the record, I have no links to the Coulson group or any other covert influencing network or group trying to profit from healthcare scams.

Dual Use Technology

Near the start of her tirade, Wallace claims that my co-presenters and I “don’t want people to think this is really happening,” i.e., “get[ting] injected for the biocyber interface” (2:10). This is obviously untenable in view of our critique of the “Covid-19” injections as potential military technology, in which we draw on the IoBNT literature (see, for instance, Part 4 our Transhumanism series).

Wallace mentions “the military side and development,” as though we had not considered it, and criticizes those who think “the nano’s not provable in humans.”

Yet, anyone who has watched the two Omniwar symposiums will know that my co-presenters and I are in a tiny minority when it comes to foregrounding the military’s role in terms of nanotechnology R&D, and in making the case that such technology may already have been tested out on 5.5 billion people. Why, then, does Wallace insist on mischaracterizing and slandering us, for instance by calling me “the lead on bullshitting”?

Wallace critiques my slide on Meta by stating “the real technology they’re using is still going out, but it’s going out under the auspices of your precision AI healthcare.” Johnson, Broudy, and I have written and presented extensively on dual use technology and the use of healthcare as a civilian disguise for military operations.

Religion

In my presentation, I critiqued the idea of merging human consciousness with A.I. (or uploading it to the cloud) by noting its intellectual heritage in authors who were Rockefeller-funded and/or involved with New Age movements. My point was that this way of thinking derives from a secularized form of religion fit for a totalitarian World State, not science.

Yet, as my slides on transhumanist fantasies play through in the background, Wallace exclaims

Let’s make it sound like it’s not here, it doesn’t work, it’s all just a big scare tactic. You can click your heels, believe in Jesus, and it will be fine. This goes right into alignment with what they’re telling people on the Infowars. (05:00)

Once again, this is not what I was arguing. In fact, I have been critical of that very position. In my presentation, I was explicitly being critical of allowing religious thinking to warp scientific analysis.

From around the 24-minute mark, Sabrina starts to cackle ever more perceptibly. “What a joke,” she claims of my presentation, while trying in vain to link it to RFK Jr. (24:50). She even suggests that I am engaged in a “humiliation ritual.” There something vaguely occultist about this.

Electromagnetic Warfare

The section on electromagnetic warfare (EW) is mostly left to play by Wallace, probably because it aligns with the fundamentals of her view on EW.

Nevertheless, there has to be a reason to attack me. So, when I cite one critic who uses the term “Neurostrike” to describe EW weaponry, Wallace cries out “Oh my God! ‘Neurostrike’ looks like a buzzword, kind of like ‘sentient world simulation,’ to blame it on China.”

Yet, I explicitly endorsed James Corbett’s view in the introduction to the symposium that horrific new technologies are always blamed on official enemies. In fact, I state as much specifically with respect to EW. So, Wallace’s criticism is moot.

When I point to the possibility that brain implants could make people targetable in an EW weapons system, Wallace replies “We don’t need an implant,” without further elaboration (09:00). Another evidence-free claim on her part.

Re: Havana Syndrome, Wallace claims “The majority of what they showed was animal studies.” I was the only presenter to deal with Havana Syndrome, and not a single thing I had to say about it involved animal studies.

According to Wallace,

Electromagnetic warfare has sixty years of getting the job done, primarily with ultrasound, it’s like getting hit in the head, thus the ability to cause various types of tissue damage. (10:20)

“Like getting hit in the head” is the point I explicitly made with respect to what Len Ber has dubbed “non-kinetic brain injury.” So, she is not adding anything here.

Cognitive Warfare

In my section on cognitive warfare, I described how it has been used since 2020 to create enormous social divisions — between friends, families, and loved ones — by using algorithmic manipulation to silo people into irreconcilable social realities.

Wallace’s interpretation, however, is that I am seeking to “bullshit people to death, running division between families and the people who are being harmed.” The irony could hardly be more palpable.

With my cognitive warfare slides rolling in the background (there were only four of them), Wallace exclaims

BCI headsets ten years old, and dude is up here telling your friends and family, “nah, it ain’t real! They can’t do it, let’s look at some more mouse brains.” Make that make sense. I can’t make that make sense, other than supporting his good friends, who are selling fake products — all of them, there’s a bunch of them” (10:48).

This is an attempt to overwrite what was I actually saying about CW (conflicting social realities, making the individual the weapon, undermining democracy, etc.) with a fake and completely unrelated narrative. My “good friends” and “fake products” are back again. The best means of propaganda is repetition. Truth is irrelevant.

Apparently, my aim is to “help the Infowars make people believe that RFK is going to save the day” (11:05). Is it? Long before Trump was re-elected (possibly in the Maryann Gebauer interview mentioned at the start), I publicly expressed my reservations about RFK, arguing that he would be the perfect Pied Piper to lead “health freedom” advocates towards accepting certain “safe” forms of “vaccination,” a primary weapon in the Omniwar, because it bypasses the body’s natural defences. I stand by that view.

Wallace demands: “explain to me, then, the bio cyber interface, explain to me using WiFi to calculate EEG on non-cooperative human activity radar with spectrograms” (11:10).

No, it needs to be the other way around. Wallace needs to explain the “bio cyber interface” to us. I have read plenty of IoBNT (Internet of BioNano Things) papers now that mention a “bio cyber interface” and include a diagram, but none which state explicitly how it works. Such papers tend to be theoretical in nature, describing how the IoBNT could work. As for WiFi, EEG, and spectrograms, Wallace needs to explain precisely what it is that she is talking about.

Scholarship

“They called him a scholar,” Wallace laments (11:50). Meanwhile, on screen, every single one of my slides displays hyperlinked references for all claims made, including dozens of scholarly sources. The slides can be accessed at https://www.technocracy.news/the-brain/.

The information I presented was extensively researched, carefully structured, and painstakingly edited (the original presentation came in at 1 hour and 20 minutes). My aim was to convey complex and challenging subject material to a wide audience as clearly as possible. It is my belief that true intelligence resides in being able to communicate complex ideas in simple terms.

In contrast, what does Wallace offer? Nothing but an off-the-cuff, vitriolic rant that advances no one’s understanding and only causes harm.

“He said nano is unprovable in people,” she continues (I did not; even “mRNA vaccines” supposedly rely on lipid nanoparticles). “That is the biggest load of shit I have ever heard,” she says (12:15). It is hardly the most sophisticated of arguments.

“These same scholars,” Wallace claims, “can’t type in nano.gov. I don’t even have words.” Yet, I referenced the National Nanotech Initiative (nano.gov) earlier in the presentation. Patrick Wood mentioned it, too.

Giordano and Smart Dust

In my presentation, I mention that Giordano was a consulting ethicist on DARPA’s N3 programme. Wallace thinks she knows better, however: “He’s not an ethicist” (15:00). Well, here is Giordano’s LinkedIn post from 2024:

I had two slides on “smart dust,” contrasting Giordano’s 2017 claims regarding weaponizable smart dust with DARPA N3 Programme Manager Al Emondi’s 2019 claim that such technology “doesn’t exist right now.” The point was to place a question mark over how advanced smart dust really is.

According to Wallace, however,

Smart dust is used for the blockchain with their NFT! Smart dust is sensor technology from the seventies. How the hell do you not know?! Fraud! Pure fraud! Unbelievable, it’s getting worse! (16:00)

Note the propagandistic language of indignation as Wallace’s ire builds. Unable to mount an evidence-based, rational argument, it degenerates into slogans such as “How the hell do you not know!”

Know what? Again, no evidence is provided to corroborate the claims she makes. I have written about the intended integration of human bodies into the global financial system, yet I would not go so far as to claim that smart dust is already in use with NFT for the blockchain. Is smart dust really sensor technology from the 1970s? As presented by Giordano, it is a nanoscale technology, which did not publicly exist in the 1970s.

I ask in my presentation: does smart dust exist already in Giordano’s sense of being able to nanoswarm into the brain space? Wallace replies by referencing a 2017 article, titled “Recent Advances in Neural Dust: Towards a Neural Interface Platform.”

But this is not the same thing. Neural dust has to be surgically implanted. Note the word “towards” in the title. This is typical of the IoBNT literature. In the open literature at least, everything is geared “towards” the aim of hooking human bodies up to an external network via nanotechnologies. As real as that threat is, there is no evidence that it has yet been achieved.

Wallace also flashes up the following 2014 paper as evidence that smart dust is in operation:

As usual, however, the merest glance at the abstract indicates otherwise: “Such systems will require two fundamental technology innovations” (my emphasis).

“Holy shit,” Wallace later exclaims, “So, Giordano is LARPing [live-action role-playing] as well.” Yet, I begin and end my presentation with Giordano. The entire thing is structured around assessing the credibility of his claims regarding weaponizable neurotechnology. I conclude that most, but not all, of what he has to say deserves to be taken seriously.

Classified Military Technology

On classified technology, I mention that the disclosure gap could have widened to at least 24 years, based on the destruction of the Twin Towers. Wallace’s evidence-free comment is that “the standard [is] at least 30 years.” Lissa Johnson, in her presentation, with evidence, suggested 40 years.

In my slide titled “Not Sci-Fi (Or So They Claim…),” I observe several instances of key figures taking pains to assure their audiences that what they are presenting is not science fiction. One of those figures is Professor Ian Akyildiz, Wallace’s idol. In a 2011 presentation, Akyildiz explicitly sought to persuade his audience that injectable body-sensor networks were not science fiction.

In her interpretation of that slide, Wallace takes issue with the idea that body-sensor networks were “a very new topic at the time [2011],” claiming that they originated in the mid-1990s, crying “Fraud! This is egregious, and it’s getting worse!” (18:45).

It is her straw-manning that is egregious, however. Regardless of when body-sensor networks were invented, my point was that Akyildiz felt the need to persuade an audience which, in 2011, would not have believed such a thing to be possible.

In my presentation, I explicitly critiqued the claim that nanobots are an idea being used to scare us, by showing numerous electron microscope images of nanobots from peer-reviewed studies (19:15).

Yet, for some reason, Wallace’s interpretation is as follows:

So now, Akyildiz is crazy […] and NATO is lying. Nano.gov doesn’t have self-assembly, sensors that we’re using for our warfare doctrine don’t work. They’re not real. Like I said, why is this getting worse?”

This is, frankly, irrational. I cite Akyildiz, NATO, and Nano.gov in my presentation — all as evidence of what is intended for humanity.

“Excuse me, scholar,” Wallace asks, “since when do the warfare divisions of the world just make shit up on the fly?” (20:20).

Answer: deception is perhaps the key component of 21st century warfare (Hughes, 2024, Ch. 6).

Wallace concurs with my assessment that Neuralink is “certainly not revolutionary.” However, she packages her assessment with some bizarre claims, such as “I’ve been replaced with Hope and Tivon” (20:55), whom I do not mention, but which may indicate a certain degree of paranoia. Hope and Tivon are obviously important to her: as early as the second minute of her video, she claims that I referenced them in my presentation, which I did not.

Wallace reiterates her claim that “Netflix, Wifi, don’t need a chip, not a problem! Spectrogram. Spectroscopy. Bet that ain’t gonna come up” (21:10). Quite right — because it doesn’t make any sense, at least as phrased.

I cite David Nixon’s seminal microscopic investigations of numerous substances, principally the contents of the “Covid-19 vaccines,” as evidence of potential undisclosed technologies being deployed against humanity.

In return, Wallace points to

the plausible deniability of everything he just did to make people believe that we’re not using sensor technology. That means the MBAN [medical body area network] is bullshit. It means hospitals, the FCC, they’re LARPing since 2012.

So, in Wallace’s imagination, the painstaking empirical investigations carried out over the course of years by Nixon and other honest scientists merely serve to distract from her preferred narrative, i.e. that hospitals and the FCC (through its MBAN protocols) are already logging into everyone’s organs remotely.

For sure, the MBAN exists and the FCC has assigned specific frequency bands to it, and it serves a useful function, say for people with pacemakers or other surgically implanted devices which can detect certain biological signals and transmit them to the hospital (or be activated remotely, like insulin pumps).

However, I am not aware of any credible evidence that the “bioelectrical divisions” are logging into all of our organs remotely without the need for any kind of implant or injection — and have been doing so for decades. That is Wallace’s shtick, and I do not find it at all convincing.

Wallace sardonically intones “And we certainly don’t have self-assembling nano in the shots. Holy crap!” (22:40). Not only is this odd, given her earlier claims that wireless technology alone is sufficient to log into human organs, but she pronounces this almost exactly as I claim “I certainly don’t think we can rule that possibility out.”

Wallace does not dispute my contention that classified military technology may have been deployed/tested in the “Covid-19 vaccines” (32:50). It would be interesting to know from Wallace, therefore, what the point was of the global injection campaign of 2021, if the “bioelectrical divisions” can hack straight into our bodies anyway?

Remote Control Organisms

In my section on remote control organisms, Wallace derisively states “Oh my God!,” before pointing to the following:

It is the same pattern as before: BioBricks is a “standard […] developed with a view to [...]” (my emphasis). Everything is always future tense, yet Wallace talks as though such technologies had been developed and deployed decades ago. Even though classified military technology allows for that possibility, citing contemporary papers in the open literature cannot hope to prove anything.

In my presentation, I ask, based on scientific studies, whether technologies such as magneto-electric nanoparticles (MENP) could be used in humans to induce docility, conformity, obedience, etc. Wallace’s reply: “Yeah, by you talking to people like they’re an idiot” (24:20). This is just an insult, not a worthwhile comment.

When I cite JJ Couey on why not to extrapolate from mice brains to humans, Wallace responds “Which is why you shouldn’t be bringing it up.” However, virtually all peer-reviewed studies of “advanced” neurotechnologies so far are in animals, which is obviously relevant.

“So we’re going to talk about mice and insects to prove that we can’t do it in humans,” Wallace objects (26:00). However, it is incumbent upon Wallace to show that “we” can do it in humans, and she has certainly not shown that.

According to Wallace,

We should not be going backwards and bringing this discussion down to mice brains and insects […] Akyildiz isn’t LARPing. He’s on the cutting edge of telecommunications with sensor technology.

It is not “going backwards” to ask what exactly has been demonstrated scientifically in the field of neuroscience and technology.

But it could be moving forwards to ask what exactly Akyildiz has proven to be technologically possible. For example, where is a single real person with intracorporeal nanotechnology inside them that allows a third party to monitor and manipulate their organs remotely? We know that such technology is the goal of the technocrats, and that the implications for social control are horrifying, but where is the proof that it has actually been developed?

When I later state in my presentation that “syringe-injectable nanotechnologies remain unproven in humans, at least in the open literature,” Wallace does not challenge this (31:30). Given her reverence of Akyildiz, this was her opportunity to provide some evidence of such technologies being proven in humans, but she did not do so.

Wallace claims, without evidence, “You’re connected to the internet — straight up, straight on. Somebody has a remote for you, and they’re not going to give it up.” Yet, when it comes to my slide titled “vaccination as neurological remote control,” Wallace claims that “Thinking along these lines, with all the dis- and misinformation that he provided, is absolutely atrocious. Again, we should be protecting our college students […].”

So, it is fine for her to make unsubstantiated claims about somebody already having remote control of your body, but a more nuanced view about what “vaccination” could potentially entail in the future is “atrocious” disinformation. The insinuation that I am a threat to college students is yet more ad hominem.

Morality

According to Wallace,

We don’t need nanobots in the body. I mean, you can, but to go out and do this on Children’s Health Defense [voice indignantly rising]? You think people are going to slow down injecting their children when you are out there telling them it’s not real, it’s not here, it’s not possible, I mean, it could be, but it’s classified. What [in the hell] are they doing? [cackle]. (28:15-29:10)

The idea that I am somehow contributing to the injection of children is egregious, given that I published a peer-reviewed paper opposing the injection of children when it mattered, and have continued to speak out against it since.

As for what is real and what is not real, the whole point of my section on classified military technology was to get my audience to be more open-minded regarding what might already exist technologically. So, another straw-manning of my argument.

Regarding my slide on the dangers of the “Playstation mentality” and drone “pilots” suffering from PTSD, Wallace asks “How is that possible if everything you’ve just said doesn’t exist?” What is she talking about? Who said what doesn’t exist? Her remarks are incoherent.

Examining Evidence

More ad hominem follows:

I don’t believe this guy is considered a scholar, when he can’t explain any of what he’s talking about, without referencing mice and insects, and making it all sound like “It could be a big military cover-up.” Dude, this is legit health care (30:10).

The role of a scholar is to examine evidence with the necessary methodological rigor. What the evidence shows — in the open literature at least — is that very little, if any, of the most “advanced” brain technology (e.g. magneto-electric nanoparticles) has been proven experimentally in humans.

This is important to understand, because it implies a gap between lavishly funded psychopathic “mind control” aspirations using neurotechnology and what is publicly known to be achievable. Of course, classified military technology complicates things by introducing known unknowns.

What the evidence does not show is that the health care system is already being used to log into everyone’s organs via the MBAN.

Wallace likes to cite a 2020 Purdue University study on “turning the body into a wire” as evidence that human bodies are mere nodes on the network, with data being transmitted through them. Although this would be consistent with the way in which drones help to build the network, the Purdue study is actually about localizing data from implants or wearables within the body so that it cannot be remotely hacked. Once again, the literature does not substantiate Wallace’s claims.

Gaslighting

Citing the Purdue Study, Dick Cheney’s order that doctors disable all wireless signals to and from his pacemaker, the establishment of the Medical Implant Communications Service (MICS) band in 1999, and the Cambridge University Internet of Everything group, Wallace exclaims “we’re supposed to, as adults, throw all of that out, and believe him [i.e., me]?”

“Talk about gaslighting,” she adds. “Holy shit!”

But where is the real gaslighting here? Time and again, Wallace simply makes things up about me and asserts them as fact, with a view to damaging my reputation. Time and again, I am blamed for things I have never done and never said.

For example, according to Wallace, I claim that “The body area network isn’t provable’” (29:20). Yet, I have never made that claim.

While throwing a tantrum by hurling baseless insults at me, and repeatedly using the infantilizing metaphor of “LARPing,” she thinks that she is the adult in the room. This level of projective attack is both stunning and deeply unpleasant to behold.

I conclude my presentation by warning of the dangers of neurotechnologies being used for purposes of human enslavement. “Clearly he doesn’t believe that,” Wallace snarks, or else he wouldn’t have done such a great job bullshitting people into submission.”

Yet, I reached the same conclusion in “Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy, which was published in April 2024, with the manuscript having been submitted in June 2023. Obviously, I do believe it.

At the end of my presentation, Wallace remarks “What. A fraud. That was horrible” (35:00).

The level of nastiness here is remarkable, especially given the respectful approach I took to Wallace’s work in my one previous article about it.

Credentials and “Expertise”

Astonishingly, Wallace did not stop there. 45 minutes later, she came back for more, this time to question my credentials (another form of ad hominem): “Who is he? What is he an actual doctor in? (1:19:00).

This did not seem to bother her last July, when she began her video on me “This gentleman is an academic, he wrote a book.”

Weirdly, Wallace pits me against Akyildiz. “He accused Professor Akyildiz in 2011 [...] Professor Akyildiz doesn’t know what he’s talking about” (01:20:45).

Wrong again. I cited a presentation by Akyildiz in 2011 as evidence that certain key figures publicly insist that the technologies they are describing are not science fiction. I did not “accuse” him of anything.

A Google search reveals to Wallace that I have a Ph.D. in German Studies. “Can you please explain to me,” she asks, “how a doctor with a Ph.D. in German Studies can go out there and beat the following?” — at which point she shows Akyildiz’s Wikipedia page (01:21:30). She then goes on a long rant about how a Ph.D. in German Studies does not trump Akyildiz’s expertise (01:24:00).

But when did I ever claim to be in competition with Akyildiz, or to know more than Akyildiz about his field of expertise? Wallace is just plucking ideas out of thin air in order to resume her vitriolic attack on me.

According to Wallace, “That was the assertion that David Hughes made. That we should take his word” (01:26:10). Again, I said nothing of the sort.

On the contrary, I cite Akyildiz repeatedly in my report, Omniwar: Exposing and Ending the Invisible Attack on Humanity — on CubeSats, molecular surfaces, the IoBNT, etc. Quite where Wallace gets the idea that I think I am smarter than Akyildiz, or that I am “throwing Professor Akyildiz under bus” (01:28:25), is a mystery.

“I just can’t even get my brain to bite down on the level of deception,” Wallace complains. “He wrote a book on the Nazis, he knows more than the DoD” (01:29:40).

More straw-manning. When have I ever claimed to know more than the DoD? How could I, given my claims about classified military technology?

In fact, it is Wallace who claims to “know more” than others:

I worked in the industry. So, they can have their doctorates in German Studies and Psychology, but I know more than they do, because I actually worked the job with the equipment, just not with nano, but that’s why I understand the routing the way I do. (01:36:15)

Good for her. No doubt she knows a lot about information communications technology.

Seeing the Bigger Picture

The point of my work, and of the Omniwar symposiums, is not to claim superior knowledge across all disciplines. Rather, it is to make sense of the world-historical transformation that has been underway since 2020 by synthesizing knowledge from all areas.

When I first recorded my presentation, it came in at one hour and 20 minutes, and a lot of material had to be cut. Originally, I was going to lead with Joshua Stylman’s (2025) observation that

Conventional analytical frameworks are especially inadequate for something this grand. The transformation happening is so vast, spans so many disciplines, and connects so many seemingly unrelated domains that it remains largely invisible unless you’re specifically looking for it. And who has the expertise to know what to look for? Most scientists specialize in narrow fields — neuroscience, nanotechnology, wireless communications, genetic engineering — but almost no one is trained to see how these pieces fit together. You don’t know what you’re looking for until you begin to recognize the pattern.

In other words, it is not about establishing superior expertise in any one specific discipline or knowledge area. The challenge, rather, is to see the bigger picture, and in that respect it is entirely legitimate for someone with my credentials to be taking an interest in IEEE-related issues and to be broadening my intellectual horizons. In fact, that is something we all need to do.

Yet, according to Wallace, for a Ph.D. to take an interest in other fields means “you’ll be able to lie your ass off, because you have Dr in front of your name. That’s fraud” (01:41:50).

No, it is not fraud. There is no deception. It is simply what is to be expected from any intellectually honest person under current conditions. If certain technologies are being weaponized against the public, then the public needs to know about it.

There are, however, certain academic standards that one would expect to be met across all disciplines. These relate, for instance, to

• not making claims that are unsupported by credible evidence

• not straw-manning opponents or making things up

• not reading into the literature things which are not there

• not resorting to smears and ad hominem attacks

As we have seen, Wallace is guilty of all of these things. One need not be expert in her field to know that she is intellectually untrustworthy.

“It’s very insulting to those of us who have done the reading,” Wallace claims (01:46:10).

No kidding. There is nothing worse than reading paper after paper proposing various conceptual schemata and designs for technologies yet to be developed, only to be gaslit that those papers constitute evidence of technologies that have been in existence for decades.

Ulterior Motives

At the end of her lengthy, disrespectful, and obnoxious tirade, Wallace has the gall to claim

There’s a difference between treating people with respect, and not acting like a TV character. This is obnoxious. Humiliation, like I said. [Degenerates into cackling.] I really hope at the very least that X whips their ass.

Which inevitably raises questions about the true purpose of Wallace’s premeditated attack on me and my co-presenters. Why does she want to see us slammed on X? This is the language of information warfare, not science.

Wallace boasts that she comes from “cyber security at the national level.” A national security insider, in other words. Elsewhere, she has claimed that both her parents were black ops scientists and that she was experimented on as a child by the Menninger Foundation. Does anyone ever really leave that world? It requires little imagination to consider that such a person may be an intelligence asset.

Or, could it be that Wallace is a fantasist so convinced by her own delusions that she lashes out at anyone who does not agree with her? The test to determine this is whether or not she can support her core claims — e.g., regarding decades of remote control wireless access to human organs — with credible evidence. I am yet to see any.

Corinne Nokel

One of Wallace’s acolytes, Corinne Nokel, reached out to me last summer and sent me some PDFs, which I acknowledged and read with gratitude. I thought she was a constructive contributor, seeking to share information for the good of all.

Yet, just as Wallace suddenly turned on me at the second Omniwar symposium, so Nokel started to become very agitated on X just before the event. Her feed during that period presents a strange mix of reposting my original commentary on Wallace while challenging the presenters to address certain issues of her choosing, none of them directly tied to the brain, which was the theme of the symposium.

While the symposium aired, Nokel was very active in the chat on the CHD channel. Her comments included:

• “How come you never bring up IEEE standards for Intra-Body Networking? It’s BIOMEDICAL”

• “Physicians and nurses are logging into bodies REMOTELY right this moment”

• Plus references to the Cambridge Internet of Everything group.

I made a specific point of addressing Nokel’s concerns in the roundtable at the end of the symposium. For example,

• I noted that IEEE standards and the Medical Body Area Network (MBAN) did feature in the original version of my presentation, which was much too long and had to be cut back to focus purely on the brain.

• I noted that the MBAN relates to devices such as pacemakers that are implanted with the patient’s informed consent, but that “I don’t have any implants in my body. You need to demonstrate to me that ‘they’ can and are logging into my individual organs right now.”

• The Cambridge IoE group stimulated further discussion during the roundtable, with Catherine Austin Fitts noting that these kinds of discussions will inevitably be watched by people of influence within Cambridge. I asked whether sufficient ethical consideration has been paid by the IoE group to dual use technology, with ostensibly civilian technologies potentially being repurposed for military usage.

My common decency was not reciprocated, however. In fact, I am not aware that Wallace, Nokel, or any of the “Psinergists” bothered to watch the roundtable. Wallace cut away during the final presentation by Daniel Broudy, and in a cult, everyone follows the leader.

As a result, there is no hope of honest two-way dialogue with Wallace and her “Psinergists.” I tried to engage openly, in front of a large audience, but little did I know that a stream of pre-meditated abuse was about to air.

Conclusion

Regardless of whatever traumas Wallace may or may not have endured during her lifetime, there is no excuse for behaving as abusively as she has done towards me.

The vitriolic stream of lies that she has injected into social media about me is unpardonable.

Her deliberate attempt at character assassination is tragic.

Her intellectually dishonest modus operandi needs to be called out.

One of the most distressing aspects of dealing with material of this nature is that it appears to reflect a damaged mind. The broken grammar, the random connections made, the insensitivity and lack of respect toward others — all point towards something fundamentally wrong.

Was Wallace high when she recorded her worthless hit piece? I do not know.

At any rate, Wallace owes me an apology for her distinctly un-Christian behavior.

Anticipating that such an apology will not be forthcoming, I hereby terminate my interest in Sabrina Wallace, and will not be wasting any more time on her.

I advise others to do the same.