Uhm... another round of funding. Showing that the tech was still not "here" even in 2021.
And still talking about a "headset". Not even close to what you're insinuating.
A headset just gives you a high degree of spatial resolution. If there is a way to RF-sensitize neurons with self-assembling nanoparticles, then you could still very likely stimulate large clusters of neurons with lower precision from afar using future, high-precision versions of beamforming/MIMO.
Now you're just posting buzzwords. MIMO helps with bandwidth, it doesn't defy the laws of physics, doesn't make the inverse square law disappear, doesn't make antennas smaller (probably the opposite). There is a reason why those experiments are done with helmets/headsets, and use light, sound etc, not to mention the entirely different purpose (voluntary use e.g. for disabled individuals to regain certain functions). Adding multiple layers of speculation and extrapolation on top of that just further proves that you don't really have anything to support your preconceived assumptions about vaccines and mind control.
By invoking the inverse-sequare law, you are doing a few things that are incorrect simultaneously. First, you are assuming a false equivalence between a beamforming antenna that sends concentrated, coherent beams of RF at a single target with an ordinary antenna that radiates energy isotropically. Second, you are also assuming that the power density of the system must be high in order to bring about any physiological effects. This is not necessarily true. It may be the case that self-assembling nanotransducers surreptitiously placed in the brain may only need to harvest nanowatts to induce
profound changes in neuronal activity. The amount of energy that actually reaches them could be very small, and yet still achieve the desired effect.