Tasked with ensuring “soldiers have what they need before they need it,” the U.S. Army Futures Command (AFC) recently released its broad strategy to transform the foundation of Army Medicine. By accelerating research in new technologies—including shelf-stable synthetic blood, quantum computing, wearable sensors, and Disease Non-Battle Injury (DNBI) vaccines—the Army Medical Modernization Strategy (AMMS) makes clear the vision for future Department of Defense (DoD) health care activities. According to AFC, the forthcoming artificial intelligence-focused strategy is in response to the increasingly lethal methods U.S. enemies will employ to gravely harm our soldiers.
Lt. Gen. James Richardson, acting commanding general for Army Futures Command, wrote that the goal of the AMMS is to “fundamentally transform” the antiquated Army Health System (AHS) through 2035 into one that incorporates autonomous technologies and predictive artificial intelligence tools to improve decision making. He added that for decades, Army medicine has always placed new technology on top of existing doctrine. However, that approach is no longer adequate, according to Richardson. He declared:
“Modernization must be baked in, not bolted on; evolving doctrine to the pace of proven technologies and treatment modalities.
This strategy also ensures that the Army as biomedical investments continue to be synchronized and integrated with medical modernization and readiness, as well as current and future warfighting requirements.
The future, on a macro level, is one where our medical capability, capacity and proficiencies are dramatically increased, while manpower, materiel, and costs are dramatically decreased.”
Signed the @ArmyMedicine Modernization Strategy with LTG James Richardson. This strategy will ensure Army Medicine continues to stay ready and relevant in order to support the warfighter. @armyfutures @ArmyMedicine is @USArmy Strong! pic.twitter.com/vz2I8inFhs
— R. Scott Dingle (@LTGDingle) July 9, 2022
The 21-page strategy document, released on July 7, 2022, emphasizes that our nation’s adversaries will strive “to achieve their strategic aims short of conflict through layered standoff in the political, socioeconomic, environmental, and biological realms.” Developed by AFC in collaboration with multiple Army and DoD medical organizations and stakeholders, the AMMS notes that by using these methods, our enemies intend to create domestic unrest and separate the U.S. from its international allies and partners. With that in mind, the strategy seeks to ensure the AHS is well-equipped to deliver highly adaptive and effective care on and off the battlefield for years to come.
Indeed, the AMMS dictates while warfare has involved the seizure of key physical domains in the past, optimizing individual performance is critical to seizing the future warfighting initiative within the human domain. Undoubtedly in step with the shift toward transhumanism sponsored by the World Economic Forum (WEF)—and already underway in communist China—the report defines further its objective for the human domain, stating:
“The levers to optimize the human domain will be discovered at the intersection of seemingly diverse elements of one’s ecosystem, where science, technology, and humanity cross.”
The DoD’s aggressive move toward merging humans and machines is supported by the strategic integration of the doom encircling the narrative of climate change. The AMMS explains, “climate change will produce novel endemic diseases, release dormant microorganisms, increase regional competition for potable water, redistribute endemic disease, and increase regional competition in a navigable Arctic region. Soldiers must be prepared to live and fight at environmental and temperature extremes.”
The COVID-19 pandemic also influences the landscape of the future of our nation’s soldiers and lends support to the overall DoD military strategy. Surely referencing the mRNA COVID-19 experimental jabs, the AMMS points out that the impact of the pandemic “revalidated the importance of infectious disease planning and prevention.” Additionally, the plan notes that the “slow release of information and preventable community spread increased human costs over time.”
As previously reported by UncoverDC, DARPA has funded advancements in mRNA technology for nearly a decade to confront, among other things, potentially weaponized viruses. Thus, not surprisingly, the AMMS echoes Joe Biden, Bill Gates, the World Health Organization (WHO), the WEF, and other global elites in heralding that more deadly pandemics will plague our future, stating:
“Our adversaries will seek opportunities to leverage boutique viruses that have greater transmissibility, morbidity, and mortality than we’ve seen with the many COVID-19 variants. Prevention, detection, diagnosis, and treatment will play a large role in the Army’s ability to protect itself from weaponized or naturally occurring infectious diseases.”
The AMMS materiel highlights numerous advanced Soldier Lethality initiatives that enhance and transform the ability to recognize and treat novel injuries. For example, using AI, soldiers will be able to detect and treat injuries generated by new threat technologies such as directed energy, which is microwave energy and a growing battlefield threat. Health sensors, prophylactic drugs, and newly developed vaccines will assist in reaching goals of medical readiness in human performance, psychological health, and infectious disease prevention.
The Army also expects to field autonomous systems and vehicles and other emerging capabilities, like IVAS, to aid in medical care. https://t.co/QGKu5KC1hD
— Soldier Lethality CFT (@SL_CFT) July 8, 2022
The AMMS stresses that the continuous evolution of new medical threats—and the concurrent capability gaps they create—requires the AMS to finance research in “disruptive technologies” (technologies that drastically change how the military operates). The AHS identifies six disruptive research priority areas:
- Humanistic intelligence
- Bio and human enhancement technology (BHET)
- Quantum technology
- Additive manufacturing
- Synthetic biology
The disruptive technologies are explained in more detail in the screenshot below.
While all of the DoD’s disruptive technologies are worthy of further investigation, synthetic biology has seen advancements in synthetic, shelf-ready blood for combat over the past three years. In early 2019, the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research and Emergency Medicine and South Africa’s Stellenbosch University (S.U.) launched a large, multi-institutional study to evaluate the use of synthetic blood products for the resuscitation of combat trauma victims before they arrive at a hospital.
In April 2021, DARPA launched a four-year effort to develop field-deplorable, shelf-stable whole blood substitutes to “sustain warfighter and civilian casualties in austere environments.” Called FSHARP, the program called for proposers to submit interest by July 27, 2021. DARPA explained performers would develop “bio-artificial products that perform the therapeutic functions of blood components vital for resuscitation” and with up to 6-months-long shelf stability without refrigeration.
Like the relaxed safety data required by the FDA for the injection of the experimental COVID jabs, DARPA instructed proposers that product studies were needed that could “support submission of an FDA Investigational New Drug (IND) application.” Still, as the extensive and growing list of adverse events from the COVID jabs becomes more evident (with damage from the spike protein, lipid nanoparticles, etc.), the development of synthetic blood for human injection is cause for concern. Nonetheless, FSHARP outlined its loose and fast expectations for the development of the bio-artificial product submissions explaining:
“We expect proposers may draw on recent innovations such as nanoparticle platforms for oxygen delivery, wound-sealing, or correction of disorders that accompany trauma. With flexible design approaches like these, along with new computational and in vitro testing platforms, rapid prototyping is possible to ensure the components work together and can be tailored to specific clinical scenarios.”
One can’t help but wonder if synthetic blood and other artificial technologies will undergo ethical testing before being introduced to our soldiers. If so, what would the testing entail, and would anyone willingly sign up for such a clinical trial? And after the COVID-19 “vaccine” fiasco, DARPA’s mention of the IND application as well as a computer and in vitro testing platform for synthetic blood lends a compelling reason to be apprehensive. Nonetheless, for a soldier on the futuristic battlefield, the DoD may declare it doesn’t matter if a combat-ready artificial product—including blood—is safe and effective if they insist it is their best option.