Any and all my data is not centralized, so there is no way currently that this is possible to obtain through a vaccination marking.
Unless you administer the databases in question, you have no say how they are used. They are owned by private and government entities. At best you can limit what you contribute to the data acquisition stage, but once it has been acquired, it is theirs, not yours.
Data mining has been taking place for years, solely for the purpose of big data operations, and the huge monetization potential that the data owners hold. The data is cross linked and combined in ways that would shock you.
We've been warned about this for well over a decade by ex FBI and CIA whistleblowers like Steven Rambam and Robert David Steele. The culmination now is all encompassing datasets that completely erode any sense of privacy.
All the marking needs to be is a UUID that is linked to you in the data. Then they can potentially know anything that is linked to your marker, which is a potentially limitless set of data.
The concept here applies specifically to medical data, in this particular discussion at least, but the system and methodologies can be applied to any dataset. Like your driving record, political affiliation, Netflix habits, and so on.
Which, again, does not and cannot exist at this present moment in a way that you cannot detect (beyond whether or not you have received a specific vaccination).
Are you claiming the implantable sensors do not exist? They absolutely exist, as someone in your field should know already.
The linked patent brief goes into excruciating detail about it so that would be a good place to start if you wanted to learn more.
Point being, this is what is being planned and discussed. Implantable sensors, markers, transmitters, receivers, etc.
Implications are limitless. Any idea has enormous implications. People can put their own implications behind anything, as we've seen the MSM do with trump's tweets every single day. Doesn't make them so.
Indeed, the implications are limitless. Combine that with the nefarious motivations of some people involved, and what that could mean.
This should absolutely concern you, but if it does not, that is fine. Feel free to ignore the discussion. Someone else can fight this particular battle.
Unless you administer the databases in question, you have no say how they are used. They are owned by private and government entities. At best you can limit what you contribute to the data acquisition stage, but once it has been acquired, it is theirs, not yours.
Data mining has been taking place for years, solely for the purpose of big data operations, and the huge monetization potential that the data owners hold. The data is cross linked and combined in ways that would shock you.
We've been warned about this for well over a decade by ex FBI and CIA whistleblowers like Steven Rambam and Robert David Steele. The culmination now is all encompassing datasets that completely erode any sense of privacy.
All the marking needs to be is a UUID that is linked to you in the data. Then they can potentially know anything that is linked to your marker, which is a potentially limitless set of data.
The concept here applies specifically to medical data, in this particular discussion at least, but the system and methodologies can be applied to any dataset. Like your driving record, political affiliation, Netflix habits, and so on.
Are you claiming the implantable sensors do not exist? They absolutely exist, as someone in your field should know already.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=implantable+sensors
The linked patent brief goes into excruciating detail about it so that would be a good place to start if you wanted to learn more.
Point being, this is what is being planned and discussed. Implantable sensors, markers, transmitters, receivers, etc.
Indeed, the implications are limitless. Combine that with the nefarious motivations of some people involved, and what that could mean.
This should absolutely concern you, but if it does not, that is fine. Feel free to ignore the discussion. Someone else can fight this particular battle.
So it appears your argument is this:
Everything is fine, as long as the mark can only be read in a non subtle way?
Frankly I'm not learning much from you here, but thanks anyway for the conversation.