Proposed Arizona Bill Designates MRNA a Bioweapon!

State Representative Rachel Jones Keshel Introduced the 'Sansone MRNA Bioweapons Prohibition Act' into Arizona Legislature!

Dr. Joseph Sansone, January 29, 2026

American Patriot and Arizona Representative Rachel Jones Keshel introduced the ‘Sansone mRNA Bioweapons Prohibition Act’ into the Arizona Legislature. Arizona is the second state to have the bill introduced. The bill was first introduced by American Patriot and Minnesota Representative, Shane Mekeland, in the State of Minnesota.

The bill is part of a multi state effort to stop the distribution of mRNA biological and technological weapons of mass destruction targeting American citizens. The proposed historic legislation is unique as it recognizes that mRNA injections and products are already illegal according to existing state biological weapon, weapon of mass destruction, or terrorism laws. The bill also creates a criminal and civil liability for non enforcement.

Sansone, who is litigating in Florida to stop Governor DeSantis from continuing to facilitate mRNA biological and technological weapons of mass destruction in the state, has filed 11 expert affidavits with the Court, including an affidavit from the late Dr. Francis Boyle, considered by many to have been the world’s leading legal authority on biological weapons. Dr. Boyle drafted the United States domestic implementation legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention called the Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act of 1989, which passed both houses of Congress unanimously, clearly stated that the mRNA nanoparticle injections violated the law he wrote.

Affidavits were also obtained from Dr. Ana Mihalcea, Karen Kingston, Dr. Andrew Zywiec, Nic Hulsher, Dr. Marivic Villa, Dr. Ben Marble, Dr. Paul Alexander, Dr. Rima Laibow, Richard Hirschman, Dr. Avary Brinkley.

A recent peer reviewed journal article published in the American Journal of Physicians and Surgeons titled COVID 19 Harms and Damages: A Non Exhaustive Conclusion, also asserted that the COVID ‘vaccine’ violated the Biological Weapons Convention.

The World Council for Health, Florida, also recently endorsed the ‘Sansone mRNA Bioweapons Prohibition Act’ and declared mRNA nanoparticle injections biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.

Representative Rachel Jones Keshel has also been a tireless advocate for election integrity. Rachel Jones Keshel was elected in 2022 and represents Arizona’s District 17 and is a member of the Arizona Freedom Caucus. Representative Keshel was even working on this bill with Dr. Sansone on New Year’s Day.

Both Representative Keshel and Dr. Sansone encourage other state legislators to introduce their state’s version of the bill.

The Arizona version of the bill has still penalties including life imprisonment.

Link to Bill in AZ Legislature.

Dr. Joseph Sansone is a psychotherapist opposed to psychopathic authoritarianism.
Mind Matters and Everything Else is 100% independent. If you appreciate my writing and advocacy and would like to support it, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a donation of any amount. Donations may be sent c/o Joseph Sansone, 27499 Riverview Center Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, United States, or make an online donation on Ko-Fi or donate Bitcoin.

A 2012 article in the Hastings Law Journal examines the constitutional and legal implications of using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) for interrogation and lie detection. For more information, visit Hastings Law Journal.

• Note – The Government Can Read Your Mind-Can the Constitution Stop It?

  Aug 13, 2012 — Mara Boundy. Follow this and additional works at:
  https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol63/iss6/8/

  UC Law SF Scholarship Repository

In 2026, the claim that the "government can read your mind" is a subject of intense legal and scientific debate. While technology has advanced to decode certain types of brain activity, a clear distinction exists between interpreting brain patterns in controlled settings and accessing private thoughts without consent.

As of early 2026, here is the current status of this technology (According to GROK):

1. Technological Capabilities (2025–2026)

• Decoding "Gist" of Thoughts: Researchers have developed "semantic decoders" using fMRI and AI that can reconstruct the general meaning of what a person is hearing or imagining. These systems currently require hours of training on a specific individual's brain data and the subject's active cooperation.

• Speech Restoration: Modern brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) can now detect "inner speech," allowing individuals with speech impairments to communicate by decoding the neural signals of intended words.

• EEG-to-fMRI Synthesis: New deep learning models (such as E2fNet, introduced in early 2025) can synthesize high-resolution brain activity maps from lower-cost EEG data, making advanced neuroimaging more portable and accessible for research and potential monitoring
  

2. Government and Legal Status

• Admissibility in Court: In the U.S., most courts still find fMRI-based lie detection inadmissible because the method is not yet universally accepted by the scientific community.

• Constitutional Protections: Legal scholars, including those in the Hastings Law Journal article you cited, argue that brain scans should be protected by the Fifth Amendment as "testimonial evidence," meaning the government cannot compel a person to submit to a scan that reveals the contents of their mind.

• The "MIND Act": At the federal level, the Management of Individuals’ Neural Data (MIND) Act was introduced in late 2025 to direct the FTC to examine how to define and protect neural data from unauthorized collection.

3. Emergence of "Neurorights"

• State-Level Protection: Several states, including Colorado, California, Connecticut, and Montana, have recently passed laws to protect "neural data," treating it similarly to sensitive biometric data like fingerprints.

• International Standards: In late 2025, UNESCO adopted the first global standard for the ethics of neurotechnology, calling on governments to establish safeguards for the "sanctity of the human mind".

Is it legal to use mind reading techniques for interrogation?