Is Healthcare 4.0 the End of Biological Sovereignty?

Written by World Council for Health on May 13, 2026. Posted in Current News

Picture this scenario…you’re reading this article on a mobile device which is likely tracking not just your location, but your heart rate, your sleep patterns, your oxygen saturation, and —if you have the right apps— the electrical rhythms of your heart

Your watch is selling your blood sugar data. Your pacemaker is reporting your compliance to your insurance company.

You are no longer just a citizen. You are a node in one of the world’s most valuable data networks, and paying for the privilege.

For decades, we have operated under a comforting illusion: that our bodies are private, autonomous domains. That narrative is fast collapsing.

We are witnessing the transition from traditional medicine to a system of bio-electronic monitoring and synthetic biology that operates beneath the skin.

Welcome to Healthcare 4.0. It is not just about curing disease; but about data harvesting, predictive modeling, behavioral modulation — and control.

To begin with, we must confront the surveillance infrastructure already wrapped around your wrist and sitting in your pocket. This is not conspiracy theory, but the published reality of modern engineering.

Smartwatches & Fitness Trackers: The Medical Device You Bought Yourself

The Apple Watch, Samsung Galaxy Watch, Google Fitbit, and Garmin devices are classified largely as wellness devices rather than medical devices, which means they face patchy regulatory oversight.

Yet they capture an extraordinary array of physiological data. These include: photoplethysmography (PPG) data for heart rate; accelerometer data for activity and respiratory rate; blood oxygen (SpO2) during both sleep and activity; sleep stage analysis (REM, deep and light sleep, and even snore detection); glucose levels and menstrual cycle tracking via user input; and on newer models electrocardiogram (ECG) waveforms and skin temperature.

Who owns this data? According to its terms of service, Apple states it may share (encrypted) health data with “third parties” for “research purposes.” Garmin reserves the right to sell data to “commercial partners.”

Samsung shares data with “affiliates” and “selected partners” for marketing. Promises of anonymization (even if they are technically compliant with the law) are not a hard guarantee against re-identification, especially when multiple data points and pattern recognition comes into play.

Many consumers agree to these terms without reading them or adjusting the applicable privacy settings — and in any case, such settings are far from watertight. Third-party software development kits (SDKs) are frequently embedded into apps, meaning your data is being sent to multiple parties without your knowledge or meaningful consent.

A 2022 investigation by the Organisation for the Review of Care and Health Apps (ORCHA) found that of 25 fertility apps, “84 percent allowed the sharing of personal and sensitive health data to third parties.”

(In 2023, a U.S. federal court ruled that the Premom Ovulation Tracker had improperly shared sensitive health data.) A 2019 study by Privacy International found a similar trading of personal information — this time regarding mental health.

The Medical Implant Grid: Surveillance and Vulnerability

The most intimate surveillance happens inside your body. When devices are implanted in your flesh, they are collecting data and transmitting it to servers you have never seen, owned by corporations you have never heard of, governed by terms you have never read.

And if control were ever to be seized maliciously, the consequences would be deadly.

Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGMs)

Devices like Dexcom, Freestyle Libre, and Medtronic Guardian continuously measure blood glucose and can transmit data to phones, doctors, and—increasingly—insurance companies.

They collect glucose readings every one to five minutes, which amounts to ~288 readings per day. Via interpretation or user input, they can also track meal times and carbohydrate estimates, insulin doses and timing, exercise impact on glucose, and overnight glucose patterns.

Who has access to this data? Your doctor has access with your “consent”— though that consent is often buried in paperwork you signed at intake. Your insurance company may have access and use it to adjust premiums.

App developers have access and sell data to third parties. Researchers have access, often without re-consent from patients whose data they are using. People wearing these devices often have no idea who is watching their blood sugar beyond their physician.

Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (ICDs)

Pacemakers are no longer simple electrical pulses. Modern devices are computerised implants inside your chest. They collect heart rhythm data 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They record every arrhythmia event with exact timestamps.

They monitor activity levels via built-in accelerometers. They measure thoracic impedance to assess fluid status and predict heart failure. And they track device battery status and lead integrity.

Remote monitoring means that most pacemakers now use home monitors that automatically transmit data to your cardiologist via cellular or WiFi. The same data is accessible to device manufacturers like Medtronic, Abbott, and Boston Scientific, and—under certain interpretations of data ownership laws—to insurers.

Privacy issues are one thing. But there is an additional deep cause for concern. Implantable cardiac devices are not the sealed, secure systems commonly assumed. In our increasingly networked era, they are vulnerable to attacks.

As early as 2008, Halperin et al. revealed:

“Our investigation shows that an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (1) is potentially susceptible to malicious attacks that violate the privacy of patient information and medical telemetry, and (2) may experience malicious alteration to the integrity of information or state, including patient data and therapy settings for when and how shocks are administered.”

Four years later, security expert Barnaby Jack showed that pacemakers and ICDs could still be hacked easily. And in 2017, the BMJ reported that:

“Three quarters of a million patients around the world use pacemakers with cybersecurity vulnerabilities that could potentially be sabotaged remotely by hackers with radiofrequency equipment, the US Food and Drug Administration has warned.”

Patches were released, but these necessitated a clinic visit and were not automatic updates.

A pacemaker, therefore, can be weaponized. The same remote programming features that allow cardiologists to adjust pacing without surgery can be used by malicious actors.

Most concerning is that anyone who can purchase an inexpensive software-defined radio and download public exploit code could potentially have this capability.

Insulin Pumps

Modern insulin pumps—such as the Medtronic 780G, Tandem Mobi, and Omnipod 5—are hybrid closed-loop systems that communicate wirelessly with Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGMs) to automatically adjust insulin delivery.

They collect data on every insulin dose including time, amount, and type. They track real-time glucose values, meal announcements (via user-entered data), and exercise modes.

What can go wrong is terrifying. In controlled settings, it has been demonstrated that insulin pumps can be accessed and manipulated wirelessly, using relatively cheap equipment. Attack vectors could include remote insulin overdose, remote insulin suspension, manipulating CGM readings to cause incorrect dosing, and hijacking the wireless link between pump and CGM.

The chilling possibility is that such attacks could be performed without leaving forensic evidence. The pump logs will show “user-initiated bolus” even when the user never touched the device.

A murder could be made to look like a medical error, a suicide, or natural causes.

Implantable Loop Recorders (ILRs)

These small devices, about the size of a USB stick, are implanted under the skin of the chest to continuously monitor heart rhythm for up to three years. They are often used for unexplained fainting, palpitations, or atrial fibrillation detection.

Who has access? Cardiologists, device manufacturers, and —in some healthcare systems— automated AI algorithms which flag “abnormalities” without any human review. In the automated systems, an algorithm decides whether your heart rhythm is suspicious, and whether to alert your doctor.

By extension, an algorithm could decide whether to flag your file for insurance review. A human being is unlikely to see your data unless the algorithm decides it is worth their time.

Smart Contact Lenses and Retinal Implants

Emerging technologies are pushing biosensing even further. The cameras used in retinal implants (bionic eyes) might potentially become a further step towards human–machine integration.

Smart contact lenses being developed by companies like Mojo Vision and Google (through its Verily subsidiary) can contain miniature displays, sensors, and wireless transmitters. This raises the alarming, but no longer implausible, possibility of a permanent visual record of everything you see.

Additionally, research prototypes have explored tracking intraocular pressure using smart contact lenses, and detecting biomarkers such as glucose levels in tears (Elsherif et al., 2022). All of this indicates that the trajectory is becoming more continuous, more intimate.

Cochlear Implants and Auditory Manipulation

Cochlear implants, which restore hearing to the deaf, are essentially computers that translate sound into electrical signals sent directly to the auditory nerve. As computers, these devices could potentially be hacked.

An attacker could send signals that the patient perceives as sounds that are not there: voices commanding them, warnings no one else can hear, music that will not stop. The line between therapy and weapon blurs completely.

Smart Pills and Ingestible Sensors

Proteus Digital Health (now defunct, but its technology has been acquired and rebranded) created ingestible sensors that, once swallowed, communicate with a wearable patch to confirm medication adherence.

The sensor is activated by stomach fluid and transmits a unique signal that identifies the patient, the medication, and the time of ingestion. The FDA approved this technology in 2017.

Your doctor can therefore know, with certainty, whether you took your pill. Your insurance company can know too. And if you are prescribed medication as a condition of parole, probation, or employment, the authorities can know as well.

Proponents of this technology talk with great enthusiasm of the “compliance” that it will enable. Litvinova et al. (2022) report:

“According to the WHO global strategy, digital technologies are connected to the future of world health. Digitalization has the potential to benefit health promotion, maintain global security, and provide services to the most vulnerable groups of the population.

Digital pills occupy an important place among the digital health solutions. Digital pills contain integrated sensors that allow monitoring of the course of pharmacotherapy through an interaction with the software of, e.g., tablets and smartphones. Such monitoring is of great importance, as low patient compliance (medication opt-out) is a major challenge for all areas of medicine.”

Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO, is also a fan of the smart pill on “compliance” grounds. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in 2018, he famously said:

Imagine the applications of that… the compliance. The insurance companies to know that the medicines that patients should take, they do take them.”

Neural Implants: The Final Frontier

Brain–computer interfaces, or BCIs (think Elon Musk’s Neuralink) represent the most direct form of human–machine integration yet developed. Rather than relying on external sensors, these systems record electrical activity from the brain itself and translate it into digital output.

In 2021, Willett et al. demonstrated that motor cortex signals could be decoded to reconstruct intended handwriting. This allowed a paralysed participant to communicate by “writing” with their thoughts — with a high degree of both speed and accuracy.

Such systems are still highly specific and limited in scope: in this case it was based on intended hand movements rather than mind-reading in a more general sense. But crucially, it shows that translating neural activity into externally readable information is no longer science fiction.

Enabling a severely disabled person to write again is of course an astonishing and laudable achievement. As with all medical advances, the crucial question is: how far will the technology go, and how can it be kept from those who would abuse it?

Could it extend so far as to decode intended speech — including thoughts you never speak aloud? Would your inner monologue, the final frontier, the last refuge of privacy, be finally ruptured?

From ‘Hackable Human’ to Self-Sovereignty

Against the possibility of a bleak future governed by algorithms, technocracy and relentless biomedical surveillance… a counter-movement is rising.

Chaffer and colleagues (2025) champion the concept of the “Self-Sovereign Patient”: an individual who exercises control over their own health data and care journey, empowered by blockchain, Internet of Things, and AI.

Far from being pessimistic about where our increasingly tech-driven society is going, they write:

“In Healthcare 4.0, we are witnessing a fundamental shift from provider-centric systems to patient-centric models, where individuals assume the role of the Self-Sovereign Patient.”

For example: zero-knowledge proofs are cryptographic methods that allow a doctor to verify you are in good health without seeing your specific viral load or genetic markers. The math proves the statement without revealing the data.

Your privacy is preserved. The verification is still valid. In a similar vein, Soulbound Tokens (SBTs) are non-transferable digital tokens that can represent verifiable credentials, medical licenses, or consent records.

They cannot be sold or transferred. They are permanently bound to your digital identity, proving your status without revealing your data.

In the sovereign future of active resistance, you are the administrator of your own biology. You optimize yourself. You control your health data. You choose what to share. Your mind remains private.

Informed consent is absolute. You read every word before signing.

The Last Word

It goes without saying that medical progress can benefit humanity in numerous ways. But like all progress, it is vulnerable to abuse, whether through baked-in surveillance mechanisms or backdoor security flaws.

We therefore need to be vigilant and discerning — not naive. The technology is neutral; its governance is not.

Recognizing the reality of seductively-disguised surveillance machinery is the first step toward reclaiming agency. The cage is only invisible if you refuse to look.

Now you have seen it, what will you do? Choose wisely. Choose actively. Choose sovereignty. For yourself and for future generations.

See more here substack.com

Please note: PSI does not necessarily endorse the views of each and every article we publish. Our intention is to encourage open, honest, scientific debate.

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method