Claiming Human Rights Protections on US Air Force Directed Energy Bio-Behavioral Research RF HPM Weapons-Testing Contracts

Report & Note | Ramola D | October 11, 2023/Updated October 12, 2023

Human rights protections on the US Air Force Directed Energy Bio-Behavioral Research (Weapons-Testing) Contract in response to the solicitation BAA-HPW-RHDR-2013-0002F, reported here recently as on other military contracts are assured by a Federal Wide Assurance (FWA), a formal certifying HHS “Assurance” document provided by the Defense contractor, in this case General Dynamics Information Technology, and approved by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Human Research Protections, signed by a Human Protections Administrator, in this case a “Principal Subject Matter Expert” from the contractor in question, General Dynamics Information Technology, as well as the company’s President, and indicating existence of a designated Institutional Review Board from the US AIr Force, in this case Chesapeake Review Inc.

The Question of the Federal Wide Assurance, OHRP, and IRBs

Federal Wide Assurances, a mystery in themselves, requiring closer study, as also Institutional Review Boards are referred to by HHS online thus: “Through the FWA and the Terms of the FWA, an institution commits to HHS that it will comply with the requirements in the HHS Protection of Human Subjects regulations at 45 CFR part 46.”

The “Terms of the Federalwide Assurance” can be found here on the OHRP website: Federalwide Assurance for the Protection of Human Subjects.

HHS Protections of Human Subject regulations referenced above, 45 CFR 46 can be found at the Code for Federal Regulations website:

And, as below, at the OHRP, HHS website:

Unfortunately it is not quite clear to what extent any human rights or human subject research protections on such contracts are actually guaranteed, overseen, periodically addressed, or audited by external parties given the formality of such a document and the fact that it is not exactly available for open review.

This subject was earlier examined in a few posts at this site in 2015 when the subject of the Office of Human Research Protections needing to assure Federal Wide Assurance on every experimentation contract involving humans, including military, first came to this writer’s attention:

Clandestine “Classified” Human Subject Experimentation using EMF Radiation/Sonic/Ultrasonic Neuroweaponry

In the Name of National Security? Secret, Classified Human Subject Experimentation and Research in 2015: Where is the Public Outrage?

At the time (October 2014), correspondence with Dr. Jerry Menikoff’s OHRP and subsequent research of Federal regulations by this writer, intended to determine the nature of Informed Consent as understood by the Department of Health and Human Services revealed that while the OHRP’s stance was that it did not guarantee protections for anyone on contracts not funded by Health and Human Services, exemptions to Informed Consent were also provided to all agencies of US Government via written exclusions in the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), as published here then.

This issue of protections has become a pressing one in recent times as thousands of people have come forward both in the USA as well as in the UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Asia to report being unconsentingly experimented on. Many know that Informed Consent has become a phrase, a label, words in a template not adhered to, contested by lawyers, ignored by unethical researchers from many institutions.

Current text online at HHS presents the principles that Should govern informed consent and ethical treatment of “human test subjects” but there is much else behind this subject which needs continuous public address.

Ramola D: Complaint to OHRP and Response from OHRP Regarding Non-Consensual Human Subject Research/Contract Involving Directed Energy Bio-Behavioral Research/US Air Force, October 18-23, 2014

In October 2014, I wrote in to the Office for Human Research Protections, to the Director of the Office for Human Research Protections, Dr. Jerry Menikoff, and to Ms. Kristina C. Borror, Director for Compliance Oversight, OHRP, seeking information on how to file a formal complaint regarding being used non-consensually as a test subject putatively on an US Air Force contract, possibly the one whose RFP (request for proposal) I had then read and was researching further (the DEBR contract which is now being further reported here), at the same time as I was making Freedom of Information Act requests to the Federal Aviation Authority regarding the frequent flyover of helicopters and small planes over our house and yard. During our interchange of emails (now PDF’d below) I learned that OHRP, tragically, could not investigate allegations related to research funded by Federal Departments and Agencies other than themselves but that they would retain my emails as a formal complaint filed with their office as a matter of public record.

Excerpts and Email Exchange with OHRP, HHS in October 2014, Complaint Regarding Nonconsensual Human Subject Research, Contract Involving DEBR/USAF

Federal Wide Assurance For the Protection of Human Research Subjects from General Dynamics Information Technology in Relation to the US Air Force Contract on Solicitation BAA-HPW-RHDR-2013-0002

In November 2014, I received the FWA for the US Air Force 2013 General Dynamics DEBR contract from the Office of Human Research Protections, HHS via Muckrock, seemingly redacted but with some information on responsible parties in General Dynamics Information Technology, to whom I then wrote in December, 2014, seeking clarification on their Informed Consent practices and enquiring about field research, acquisition of “human subjects”, watchlisting, bio-effects, and related aspects, within the context of non-consensual but deleterious biomedical radiation research as surfaced and discussed by then in lawsuits, investigative journalistic research, whistleblower testimonial and general witness reportage. I did not receive responses to my letter of enquiry, sent by email.

These letters and questions, still relevant–and likely useful for Congressional enquiries and Commissions of Truly Ethical Beings–are posted below.

FOIA Documents returned from the Department of Health and Human Services, November 28, 2014:

Federalwide Assurance (FWA) for the Protection of Human Subjects filed by General Dynamics Information Technology, June 30 2014-6-17-2018/Returned on FOIA Request November 28, 2014 from DHHS

The “Terms of the Federalwide Assurance” referenced in No. 5 of the FWA above can be found here on the OHRP website: Federalwide Assurance for the Protection of Human Subjects.

My letter sent in December 2014 to John Alvarez, the named Human Protections Administrator described as a Principal Subject Matter Expert on this FWA for General Dynamics Information technology filed with HHS was copied to S. Daniel Johnson, the named President of General Dynamics Information Technology, Kristina Borror and Jerry Menikoff of OHRP, HHS, Letitia Aby of the Human DIgnity Council of which I was then a part, and the general information desk at Muckrock. I wrote as a journalist, seeking answers to questions on Informed Consent by the people named “human subjects” affected by the contract.

Ramola D to GDIT: Enquiry Regarding Informed Consent Human Subject Protections on Current USAF Contract Pursuant to FOIA Request to OHRP for GDIT FWA via Muckrock:

Questions raised above: Directed-Energy Weapons (DEWs) Testing or Directed-Energy Bio-Behavioral (DEBR) Research into Human Bio-Effects Using Human Subjects | Created 12-8-2014, Sent to GDIT December 9, 2014

I had also made enquiries on FOIA for Informed Consent documentation to the Department of Defense and to the US Air Force with no responsive documents returned from the Inspector-General, DOD while a redacted, older document was returned by the US Air Force, along with, more recently, from Muckrock, some additional information provided by the Department of the Navy in an addendum naming and listing human rights protections provided by various Department of Defense regulations (see below). This information–the question of what kind of protections exist on military contracts as enshrined in extant regulations and for who–will be further discussed in a separate article soon.

There are many aspects to this subject and I like a few other journalists and scholars who have examined “human subject protections” have sought to send our views to those professing to provide them, to little avail. I will continue to unearth some of this history here and in future journalism.

Revisions to the Common Rule within the Context of Classified Operations and Reporting Victims of Same

The very notion of providing human subject research protections–to whom? (Consenting or completely non-consenting subjects, pulled into classified operations via reckless watchlisting by secret society mavens shaking hands with each other behind closed doors while pulling in kickbacks as FBI “informants” on upstanding school moms and dads?)–was revised in 2018 in the US by a group of agencies and military contractors and divisions, seeking changes to the Common Rule. This was a painful situation to examine and seek to influence at the time, as many tried.

The words of many human rights activists and those experiencing harm from covered operations were lost to all: No Waivers of Informed Consent, PERIOD: The Public Reports Ongoing Non-Consensual Experimentation and Demands the Common Rule Protect Citizens, Not Covert Activities | 2016-7-17

Claiming Human Rights Protections: Writing to the Ombudsman for the US Air Force

The notion of weapons-testing on humans as also on animals is or should be reprehensible to all.

As a matter of fact, people all over the USA speaking out about the unlawful use of directed energy weapons technologies on their physical person have long experienced, spoken out about, and sought redress for the harms they have experienced, physical, psychological, social, emotional and life-related as often covered here.

Those continuing to address and speak out about these human rights violations and life-takedown operations conducted on them or those they know and love may want to write to the named Ombudsman for the US Air Force on this contract, whose name and address can be found on the pages sent onward by the US Air Force and Muckrock and now published both here and at Muckrock.

This writer’s preliminary email last week addressed to the Ombudsman for the US Air Force and calling for a halt to all DEW testing on people is posted here for public review.

Ramola D, Letter to the Ombudsman: Human Rights Violations on US Air Force Contracts, October 2nd, 2023

More actions need to be taken on these documents and this writer continues to work on these matters as she continues to query Muckrock and the US Air Force for a fuller reveal of the documents provided on FOIA request earlier but which seem to be withheld somewhere in transit.

The 2013 USAF DEBR Contract

While this contract, in the form–of scattered sections–in which it has been provided to this writer remains somewhat mysterious, closer inspection reveals it is of profound significance and may in fact be the base contract being provided to a principal contractor for use in design of subcontracts with other Air Force bases, cities, organizations, and subcontractors; further perusal reveals the possibility of several kinds of contracts being folded within this one. Reportage on this subject will continue under separate focus and as further documents are provided to this writer.

Meanwhile, readers may wish to write to the Ombudsman themselves, and include the letter above, also to be posted on a separate page to be linked here. I hope to continue researching who best to write to next and will publish my letters and record of phone calls as I proceed.

Both at the time that these assaults were first directed my way and later, I have made many “complaints”–that is, letters of disclosure, enquiry, questioning–on sites online at the Department of Defense, the Air Force Office of Inspector General as guided by OHRP, and others. This is prior to the letters to many in Government sent by letter-mail and email, which I am striving to collect here, in efforts to provide a chronological history of effort in human rights activism and journalism.

Those who have followed this subject know that absolute tragedy has resulted, nationwide, and worldwide, consequent to the use of electromagnetic weapons — radio frequency high powered microwave weapons among them — and acoustic neuroweapons on people, unconsented-to, undisclosed publicly, and currently being reported as in use in numerous areas, including Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice, Medical Technologies, Neurotechnologies, and tragically, in incredible extension of MK Ultra, in “Behavioral Health.”

Meanwhile, public report of weapons testing on human bodies which has sought recognition in Media has been prohibited by the police-enforced lock of Fraudulent Psychiatry.

These subjects need candid address by all in Medicine and Law Enforcement today as also in the US Air Force, if this and all other nations are to proceed forward in some semblance of civility in safeguarding our children’s futures and all our rights as humans with God-given lives to live, flourish, and prosper, on this our mutual plane/t.


“Exemptions to Informed Consent” in Classified Research and Non-Consensual Covert/Clandestine Human Subject Experimentation in the USA Today Versus “Consent of the Governed” | January 21, 2016

In the Name of National Security? Secret, Classified Human Subject Experimentation and Research in 2015: Where is the Public Outrage? | March 26, 2015

Clandestine “Classified” Human Subject Experimentation using EMF Radiation/Sonic/Ultrasonic Neuroweaponry | March 9, 2015

Domestic War on Americans Hidden by Secrecy in Homeland Security “Counter-terrorism” & Intel agency activities | November 16, 2014


Leave a Reply