It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Sometime around 1992, Taub moved to San Francisco to study medicine at the City College of San Francisco. She dropped out after 18 months. Her goal had been to become a "psychiatrist."
In 1995, she became a "Deadhead" (!) and changed her name to Gypsy. Taub's activism began in 2000. She claimed she wanted to settle down and become a "Russian Style Revolutionary." She "switched careers" according to the above quote.
Gypsy's second marriage was to man who was 20 years old when she was 44. Her first marriage was to a Californian named David Taub, a biology major at Cal Tech. She claimed her 2nd husband was a reincarnation of a former lover named Sergey, who hung himself back in Russia.
Depape has a website called frenlyfrens.com.... It's creepy as hell, and has lots of references to Taub's children included in the blogposts. It also contains all sorts of antisemitism, and Q-anon style conspiracy theory. There's a rainbow unicorn theme throughout.
If drugging people and convincing them of false trauma sounds familiar, a very similar thing happened in Utah recently, in the "healing circles" of David Hamblin.
More: @DeepsHistory
originally posted by: CrazyFox
This link
May upset a lot. Came across it today. May come across as prejudiced against a religion to some.
Although device removal is usually offered at the end of studies, the cost is often not covered as part of the trial. Researchers typically ask the individual’s insurance to pay for the procedure, according to a study in the journal Neuron. But insurers have no obligation to remove a brain implant without a medically necessary reason. A patient’s dislike for the device generally isn’t sufficient.
Acceptance among recipients is hardly uniform. Patient interviews suggest these devices can alter identity, making people feel less like themselves, especially if they’re already prone to poor self-image.
“Some feel like they’re controlled by the device,” says Dubljevic, obligated to obey the implant’s warnings; for example, if a seizure may be imminent, being forced not to take a walk or go about their day normally.
“The more common thing is that they feel like they have more control and greater sense of self,” says Paul Ford, PhD, director of the NeuroEthics Program at the Cleveland Clinic. But even those who like and want to keep their devices may find a dearth of post-trial support – especially if the implant wasn’t statistically proven to be helpful.
Eventually, when the device’s battery dies, the person will need a surgery to replace it.
“Who’s gonna pay for that? It’s not part of the clinical trial,” Fins says. “This is kind of like giving people Teslas and not having charging stations where they’re going.”
“The brain is such a key part of who we are – what makes us us,” says Laura Cabrera, PhD, the chair of neuroethics at Penn State University. “Who owns the data? Is it the medical system? Is it you, as a patient or user? I think that hasn’t really been resolved.”