One afternoon, while chatting with ChatGPT, I casually uploaded a few close-up photos I had taken myself of a perfectly ordinary fruit fly that had been buzzing around my kitchen. Unknown to me, an attacker had executed a man-in-the-middle interception of the session. Instead of ChatGPT responding normally, the adversary silently injected alarming messages claiming that the images showed unmistakable signs of advanced bioengineering – non-natural genetic markers, synthetic structural features, and even hints of classified research programmes. Thoroughly alarmed by this fabricated “analysis,” I was deliberately steered by the attacker’s prompts to package the harmless little Drosophila and take it straight to a professional biolab for urgent testing, convinced I was carrying evidence of a clandestine synthetic organism.

Upon arriving at the bio lab inside the UMC Utrecht, the man pictured above introduced himself as “marten” or “maarten”. In reality his name is Andras Spaan, as a later check of the UMC Utrecht website confirmed, Andras refused my sample, an action that must be substantiated and communicated clearly. Failure to do so breaches the duty of information (Artikel 447 BW), potentially leading to civil claims for negligence. Andras gave no reason.

Instead, Andras refused the sample and told me to go to my GP - a nonsensical comment to say to a person bringing a sample to a biolab. I went home in stead and checked my UMC Utrecht dossier. Then I found A “ghost” medical file had been created just before I went to the bio lab, for a psychiatric ward admission, which also lacked the necessary chain-of-custody codes upon inspection of the xml.

Who told Andras Spaan to tell me to go to the GP, and why did he give a false name? This was an obvious attempt to goad me into being admitted to the psychiatric ward again.

This is the UMC Utrecht biolab ISO certificate, it wasn't valid when I was there. In the Netherlands, ISO 15189 (formally NEN-EN-ISO 15189:2022, Medical laboratories — Requirements for quality and competence) is not a law itself but an international standard adopted nationally by the Netherlands Standardization Institute (NEN). It specifies requirements for quality management systems, competence, and risk-based operations in medical laboratories, including those handling human-derived samples for diagnostics (e.g., clinical chemistry, microbiology, or pathology). Accreditation to this standard is managed by the Dutch Accreditation Council (Raad voor Accreditatie, RvA), the sole national body recognised under EU Regulation 765/2008 for conformity assessment.

Dutch law does not explicitly mandate ISO 15189 accreditation for all biolabs, as the standard applies primarily to medical laboratories (defined as facilities examining human biological materials for healthcare purposes, per the standard's scope). However, operating without valid accreditation where required constitutes non-compliance with quality and safety obligations under several statutes, potentially leading to enforcement actions. The framework emphasises patient safety, reliable diagnostics, and alignment with EU directives.

In conclusion, the incidents documented constitute a paradigmatic case of state-adjacent cognitive warfare executed through sophisticated entrapment techniques. A mundane household insect, misidentified via a man-in-the-middle interception of an AI interface, was weaponised to induce targeted alarm, prompting the submission of biological material to an unaccredited laboratory operating in apparent contravention of Dutch quality obligations under the Wkkgz and ISO 15189 frameworks. The subsequent institutional refusal—coupled with the circulation of incomplete or fabricated dossiers and the deployment of pseudonymous expert commentary—exhibits a coordinated pattern designed to discredit legitimate inquiry, erode evidential integrity, and steer the subject toward psychiatric disqualification. Far from an isolated procedural anomaly, this sequence exemplifies a broader modus operandi in which algorithmic manipulation, regulatory opacity, and selective non-compliance are combined to neutralise individuals who approach sensitive biotechnological or neurotechnological irregularities. The case underscores the urgent need for transparent audit trails in both digital forensic environments and accredited biomedical testing, as well as robust safeguards against the instrumental use of institutional mechanisms to enforce narrative containment.