Each phase of the newly proposed guidelines for opening up America have a loosely defined "Gating Criteria” that each State or Region must "Satisfy Before Proceeding to Phased Opening".

Gating criteria has been utilized in the medical industry so it seems innocuous enough, but nonetheless the seeming proximity of Gating with Gates (eg, Bill Gates) had my spidey senses tingling, so I read the document carefully.

The broad definition given to "Gating Criteria" in this document is underwritten by a combination of rubrics to determine "trajectories" of symptoms and cases, as well as hospitals being able to "Treat all patients without crisis care" (p. 2).

(Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/456756096/White-House-guidelines-for-reopening-economy ?)

In this article, I am specifically focusing on “crisis care,” which is situated under the third category: hospitals.

The phrase "crisis care" is vague enough that most might graft their own innocuous implications on the seemingly benign medical-like phrase. However, specific vernacular utilized in government documents can drastically affect us on the ground, which is why this phrase piqued my curiosity.

The phrase is only used only once throughout the whole document (p. 2) and never defined. It seems strange that such a particular combination of words—crisis care—is not defined because it occupies an integral fulcrum point within the proposed pathway to re-open America. In the document, the singular usage of "crisis care" exists as an anchor on the "Gating Criteria" threshold for the third category, which pertains to hospitals.

Thus, it may be important to check out what exactly "crisis care" actually means, since it is not defined in the document.

The legal definition (from law insider.com) of "crisis care":

"Crisis Care means an integrated care pathway with uninterrupted round-the-clock emergency access to mental health assessment, home treatment and/or acute inpatient care and psychiatric intensive care unit as required;"

The second definition / same source: https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/crisis-care

"Crisis Care means a level of the emergency care credential accessible for court-ordered placement afterhours (4:30 pm to 8am) or during the weekends or holidays by law enforcement, DCYF"

I must admit that I am not a lawyer, but both definitions seem rather ominous. So I did a little more digging.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) conveniently published an updated set of federal guidelines in February 2020 for “crisis care”. This federal agency is situated under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Source (Google Cached): https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gHFQSMfNGbUJ:https://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/who-we-are+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=jp&client=safari

The recently published “best practices toolkit” for “crisis care” on the SAMHSA website clearly implies that “crisis care” falls under the auspices of mental health.

However, since I am not a lawyer or doctor, I reserve the right to be wrong. I hope those with a background in the legal or medical profession can confirm either way whether "crisis care" is innocuous or sinister in the pathways for re-opening America document.

Yet, if we delve into recent history it provides additional reason for concern.

In late 2019, Attorney General Bill Barr (whose father hired a young Jeffery Epstein at the elite preparatory Dalton School in NYC, but I digress) announced the launch of Project Guardian, which “focuses on investigating, prosecuting, and preventing gun crimes”.

(Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdil/pr/attorney-general-announces-launch-project-guardian-nationwide-strategic-plan-reduce-gun )

Project Guardian places a heavy emphasis on determining the mental health of individuals by gaining broad access to medical records – essentially the barn door for potential political abuse is opened wide during this particular passage:

“Additionally, United States Attorneys will consult with relevant district stakeholders to assess feasibility of adopting disruption of early engagement programs to address mental-health-prohibited individuals who attempt to acquire a firearm. United States Attorneys should consider, when appropriate, recommending court-ordered mental health treatment for any sentences issued to individuals prohibited based on mental health.”

In other words, the Justice Department can now engage counter-terrorism techniques upon its own citizens while relying on mental health determinations.

Also in late 2019, former NBC chairman Bob Wright was pitching a new agency to “to come up with out-of-the-box ways to tackle health problems, much like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) does for the military.”

(Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/white-house-considers-controversial-plan-on-mental-illness-and-mass-shooting/2019/09/09/eb58b6f6-ce72-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html )

This new agency would be named Health Advance Research Projects Agency (HARPA) and would be advanced via SAFEHOME, which stands for “Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes.”

What the fuck are mental extremes and how are these measured? Similar to Project Guardian, SAFEHOME relies on tracking software and predictive analytics.

(Source: http://reillytop10.com/the-harpa-safehome-proposal/ )

The New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, Inc. summed up SAFEHOME:

“Among other initiatives, this new agency would reportedly collect volunteer data from a suite of smart devices, including Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echos, and Google Homes in order to identify “neurobehavioral signs” of “someone headed toward a violent explosive act.” The project would then use artificial intelligence to create a “sensor suite” to flag mental changes that make violence more likely. The document also mentions “powerful tools” collected by health-care provides like fMRIs, tractography and image analysis.”

(Source: https://www.nyaprs.org/e-news-bulletins/2019/9/10/alert-trump-administration-considers-monitoring-people-with-mental-illness-to-prevent-shootings )

However, in 2012, a Department of Defense – Defense Science Board report indicated predictive analytics do not work in ‘Task Force Report: Predicting Violent Behavior’.

“An important conclusion of this study is that rather than a prediction strategy (as called for in the Terms of Reference), a prevention strategy that includes an element of prediction capability but does not depend on it, can be much more effective.”

(Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a565355.pdf )

Even with the knowledge that predictive analytics are no effective, Trump and those in his administration have been actively pursuing the usage of predictive analytics as it relates to mental health, all under the guise of keeping us safe. Initially, in 2019, it was to keep us safe from shootings, now it is to keep us safe from the virus.

I don’t care to debate the merits of the virus. The reality is the virus is already tremendously affecting our lives so to argue over its existence is moot. Whether we like it or not, this virus is effecting us now. All we can do is to attempt to mitigate the severe erosion of our rights that is currently taking place. Thus, the focus of this article is entirely upon the fact that mental health is now being convolutedly injected into the thresholds for re-opening America, which does not bode well.

Mental health and the political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union was so egregious that a lengthy rap sheet exists on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

More recently, China exploits mental health laws to arbitrarily detain individuals without any recourse for the detained individual within “the country’s system of involuntary confinement”.

A new law passed in China in 2012 was supposedly aimed at eliminating forced mental incarcerations, instead it did quite the opposite.

“…if they are found to have a “serious” mental disability, based solely on the opinion of psychiatrists, then they can be forcibly committed. The law does not provide any further details or definitions on what constitutes a risk, or how serious a risk must be to justify forcible measures. The law also fails to guarantee the right to a lawyer and to a clear judicial review process by which to appeal such arbitrary detention. It also restricts a person’s right to communicate with those outside of the institutions during the “acute onset of illness” or “to avoid hampering treatment.”

What is most disconcerting is our future as individuals and collectively as a nation will be determined by a loosey-goosey intersection of two problematic “sciences”—predictive analytics and mental health—if we don’t speak up.

Just an FYI – also please let me know if you have any additional information or thoughts regarding this subject?