Category Archives: torture

Ville Hellberg | RENDITION FLIGHTS, ANYONE? INTER- AND CROSS-GOVERNMENTAL TORTURE PROGRAMS MANIFESTED UNDER THE NEW SURVEILLANCE AND COUNTER-TERRORISM LAWS WITHHOLD LEGAL PROTECTION, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FROM CIVILIANS, THEIR TARGETS

Report by Ville Hellberg | Posted by Ramola D | 31.05.2021

Note: This is a major report from a European policy analyst exposing the horrors of counter-terrorism and mass surveillance torture programs being run worldwide since 9/11 by US, Five-Eyes, Fifteen-Eyes, EU member nations under agreement with US intelligence and security agencies, self-labeled as surveillance and counter-terrorism, self-permissive of bio-hacking and neuro-hacking, using invasive anti-personnel Electronic Warfare neuroweaponry, self-permissive of “No-Touch Torture” and remote-access physical and neurological abuse, shrouded in secrecy and propaganda, deeply invasive of human privacy, and unleashing Stasi, Nazi, Mengele-style programs of atrocity, torture, physical, and psychological abuse in concentric circles of control on millions of innocent civilians, wrongfully labeled “suspects” and “terrorists” for purposes of competitive development worldwide of supercomputing AI, cybernetics, robotics, neuroprosthetics, Brain Nets, Mind Hives, Cerebral Internets, and brain-degrading Neuroweaponry all at the cost of massive human suffering and human lives, revealing a complete breakdown of ethics and consideration for human rights among governments, militaries, security, and Intelligence agencies, seen through the eyes of European policy analysis and human rights convictions examining US Foreign Policy just as much as state of the art Surveillance Technology and Neurotechnology.

While these programs of political persecution and hidden torture are the same ones American human rights campaigners and others worldwide have been discussing widely in articles and books (see Targeting is Real), this report is groundbreaking and unique in its close examination of the US “War on Terror” declared by George Bush in 2001, which has influenced US Foreign Policy and coerced European submission to a worldwide fixation on counter-terrorism and mass surveillance inducive of clampdowns and removals of civil rights and liberties, and destroyed the concepts, principles, and protections of democracy worldwide, including European concepts of human dignity and rights completely at odds with American imperialism. “Europeans do not wish to bring the War on Terror to European soil,” writes Ville Hellberg from Finland.

What few people know–thanks to mainstream media propaganda and long-term occlusion of human rights reportage with deprecating, discrediting cover, intended to obfuscate, of “Targeted Individuals” who have been reporting extreme torture and abuse now for over three decades–is that American counter-terrorism and surveillance programs and laws have gone well beyond the revelations of Edward Snowden and permitted egregious torture, abuse, and removal of rights on American soil, as reported by this writer and others to President Trump in 2017 and 2019:

Memorandum to President Donald J. Trump on Domestic US Torture Programs Running Under Cover of Surveillance

Once Again, A Memo to President Trump: Massive Surveillance State Abuses | Treason on the Ground, in the USA: Public-Private Partners in Targeted Killing of Americans

What Ville Hellberg brings to this disclosure is keen insight into the structure of global security agreements, the excessive role played by US “War on Terror” foreign policy demands, the rise of new technologies permitting extreme invasion of human, bio and neuro privacy, the false legalizing of “sources and methods” of interrogation and investigation granted to Intelligence and Security agencies, and the crying need to address and end the silent suffering of thousands of innocent citizens, wrongfully targeted, blacklisted, ostracized, tortured, maimed, disfigured, continually abused, destroyed, and yes, also murdered–in a complete breakdown of recognition of human rights–worldwide. Many thanks to Ville Hellberg for this powerful and deeply thoughtful analysis and report, which is surely going to pave the path to positive change, going forward.

–Ramola D

****

PDF here:

****

RENDITION FLIGHTS, ANYONE? INTER- AND CROSS-GOVERNMENTAL TORTURE PROGRAMS MANIFESTED UNDER THE NEW SURVEILLANCE AND COUNTER-TERRORISM LAWS WITHHOLD LEGAL PROTECTION, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FROM CIVILIANS, THEIR TARGETS

Ville Hellberg | May 31, 2021

WE ARE WITNESSING GLOBAL ELECTRONIC WARFARE BY SUPERPOWERS WHERE INDIVIDUALS, POPULATIONS, AND INFRASTRUCTURE ARE TARGETED. DUE TO THE WAR CIRCUMSTANCE, GOVERNMENTS HAVE PERMITTED THEMSELVES TO DIVERT FROM LAWS AND DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES.

Torture is a horrific topic and most minds will turn away from it because it can’t be comprehended that humans can be motivated, or computer programs can be run to do this to other sentient beings. Just when we believed we were becoming more civilized as a culture, the technology for torture has advanced more than a hundred fold in recent decades.” – Robert Duncan, ‘Neuropsychological and electronic “no-touch torture”. The spectrum of “interrogation” and torture techniques used by the US and its allies’. [7]

Electronic Warfare (EW) anti-personnel applications such as DEW (directed energy weapons) and AW (acoustic weapons), as well as their distant cousins neuropsychological electronic (neurotech) applications RNM (remote neural monitoring)/RMI (remote mental imaging) /EEG (electroencephalogram), and the product of these, V2K (microwave hearing), among other techniques, are being directed to civilians globally. With the exception of capital-intensive neurotech applications or other mass operations, the tech can be operated by private sector agencies and corporates, whilst the operations are in general run by military and law enforcement agencies from multifunctional radar and antenna platforms globally. Even though the applications are used in connection with psychological operations, they have the fatal capacity and produce pain, suffering and psychological trauma, even fatalities in their targets; civilians. Thus, the utilisation supports the definition of torture. Under governments’ execution, the operations are run by the military whose clientele the national security, law enforcement, intelligence societies are. Whether the implementation and targeting of this technology on civilians constitute a war crime should be evaluated. The technology ’consumes’ the human body, especially the neurological system, as directed to its targets for over inhumanly prolonged periods. Other scientists say the neurotech mass surveillance AI applications should be considered as a WMD. It is imperative indeed to acknowledge that the vast increase in numbers of targeted civilians indicates a widespread attack on human rights.

Due to its stealth nature, the technology has attracted military budgets globally. Other governments have developed sophisticated global operations and are well advanced in the utilisation of this technology. However, due to the low cost of operations most governments have utilised their own version of the technology. This also involves increased non-consented human testing and yet another armament. Human testing on dissidents, activists and whistleblowers, even their descendants, seems common. Whilst the effects of resonance spectrum frequencies on the human body and nervous system were discovered to their full potential by the midst of the 1970s [6], it still needed an agenda and strategy for implementation. The new millennium has brought us “the War on Terror” in which counter-terrorism and mass surveillance laws introduced legal instruments to allow the use of “mass surveillance neurotechnology” under which the resonance technologies are operated. The use of anti-terrorism as an agenda is an unconstitutional plan of the Western coalition that has significantly strengthened sovereign national power at the expense of human rights and democratic systems through surveillance laws.

The new dynamics of global geopolitics have also impacted the global power balance and foreign and security policies. We may have to accept that there are several superpowers capable of globally utilising this technology against the citizens of other countries. International laws should regulate the imperialistic execution of these technologies by regime and purpose e.g. automatized targeting, target selection, technology and intergovernmental co-operation should be regulated and watched carefully. There are some parallel operations and agendas that further increase the number of targeted people and populations. When the operations are global it is likely the resonances are directed through OTHRs (over-the-horizon-radar) and satellites which in turn facilitates the discovery of the source radar. For the sake of clarity, it is sensible to acknowledge that cellular phones have a key role in locating targets and delivering biometrics. The MSM is full of cover articles when one government is caught using the technology and blaming the others. Recently, we have seen evidence of purposely leaked material in MSM regarding global Electronic Warfare, in attacks where resonance technologies have been used, such as the attacks to White House officials [29] and Cuban embassy staff [30] by assumed DEW microwave technologies. These operations have been leaked not only to inform the public and other governments of the ongoing global Electronic Warfare but also to blame the other governments. It is reasonable however, to recognise that these attacks really are lightweight samples of the use of the WMDs. People should be suspicious in view of the recent bushfires also. In other words, it is the infrastructure, populations and individuals that are being targeted in this global war and not discussed in the MSM. We are indeed viewing the evidence of a global war.

The technology is poorly understood by lawmakers, practioners and politicians it is presented by military and law enforcement lobbyist and therefore, become approved and utilised globally. Human rights activists are in search of political co-operation whereas the political or administrative powers will not touch the topic. There is a significant number of similarities in details of this “play” to the events of WWII where the messengers of the Holocaust had not been taken seriously either.

Brain invasive neurotechnology applications (RNM/RMI/EEG) are claimed to have been used in mass surveillance operations. The applications are commonly called “cybernetics” although finding common global terminology for the EW applications seems problematic. We suggest the use of military terminology since the technology is based on military design. Each technology presented in this paper should be defined as Electronic Warfare anti-personnel applications, including the mass surveillance neurotechnology applications.

The mass surveillance operations target civilians and their neural systems. The operation is automated and run by supercomputers through multifunctional radar or antenna systems which means robotic elements are involved. In the investigations of the neural systems of the targeted civilians, the cortex is being stimulated by a spectrum of electromagnetic pulses for years in order to clone the entire neural system. The methodology is called synthetic telepathy since it may investigate and implant thoughts and mind patterns into the targeted brains. The term “mind control” implies the domination of the conscious nervous system. The process is not painless, hence the term “no-touch torture”. A group of brains can be linked together as “brain network” which in turn assists supercomputers to develop a competitive advantage in the field of AI. In “neuropsychological electronic torture” painful stimulants help to cause a reaction in the targets’ cortex that is measured and biometrics collected. Synthetic telepathy refers to reading and replacing one’s thoughts with “synthetic thoughts” or even by another mind replacement. The recent development where mobile devices, phones, can be used to collect and introduce these emissions i.e., ICT and 5G networks are in use. Scientists have developed systems to take nanotech to the brains which then receive the resonances. It has been presented that the mass delivery of this nanotech would occur through public vaccinations. The nanotech operates using the body energy (piezoenergetics) or by energy delivered resonances. Thus, the resonances deliver both the energy and the informantion in form of commands. The delivery of these resonances can be arranged from any platform, even by mobile device emissions. The mass surveillance utilises satellites and OTHRs. This allows continued mass observations of the feelings, senses, thoughts, and actions of the target. The fact is that individual’s free will and degree of autonomy are hugely affected.

As a result of the recent breakthrough of technological development different forms of applications are being utilized in many areas in the society, such as police, customs office, border control, prosecutor, judicial system, and intelligence community but also in the private sector. The technology remains unregulated and lacks sufficient measures of supervision, monitoring, and control due to the covert nature of the operations. In Europe, the situation is being recognized [23] by lawmakers to a certain extent. Whilst the EU has been speculated to push through a reform [8] on the laws of AI mass surveillance to ban the use of AI for mass surveillance (from the private sector alone) and some other uses this has not been ratified. There has been a good progress made to impose further regulation on automated weapons systems [31] and interrogation methodologies [32]. In addition, the consistency of surveillance laws is being evaluated in the EU by the ECHR [33]. It seems lawmakers do not understand the technology since they only have the military introduction to it. In the absence of ethical aspects, international laws, regulation, and compassion, solidarity the torture-like execution continues to be conducted, hence the phenomenon of targeted individuals.

Introduction

Too little is spoken in public about white-collar law enforcement and intelligence community operations’ military tactics that produce pain, suffering, and psychological problems to civilians. Resonance technologies are at the core of the Western intelligence community and law enforcement operations today, executed by the military among others. Yet it is unclear which government agencies and how many countries are abusing neurotech methodologies. The military technologies have been introduced to politicians under anti-terrorism agenda by a Western intelligence coup as surveillance methodologies with a major detail left ignored, that the technology causes significant pain, suffering, physical and psychological trauma, even fatalities. The technologies are also being widely misused in operations lacking supervision in an unregulated industry in the absence of ethical aspects.

Such tactics as DEW (directed energy weaponry; laser, maser, high power microwave and radio frequencies as well as particle beams), AW (acoustic weaponry), RNM (remote neural monitoring), reverse EEG (electroencephalogram), and V2K (microwave hearing) to mention a few are somewhat creatively executed from multifunction radars and a series of antennas and directed to their living targets from a diversity of platforms with satellite assistance. Despite the fact that these are military tactics, and a crucial part of Electronic Warfare anti-personnel operations, they are being directed towards civilians to cause pain and suffering when misused and therefore, must be considered as torture. Should that not constitute a war crime? In addition to a law (Finland: Rikoslaki luku 11 pykälä 9a) that defines torture as a crime, most of these nations have signed on the UN Convention on Torture.

Anyone can be put into these programs. Justice and rule of law does not exist at the highest levels of government. Treaties are worthless because the #1 agreement in the rules of war, a ban against torture, is not obeyed. This creates a more brutal and barbaric society lead by example.” [7] This is the explanation of the “War on Terror”. It seems the police, prosecutor, in particular, border control, customs, judicial system, intelligence community and military operations are all in favor of this type of implementation, the citizens themselves being bypassed. Probably, the entire clientele favours this technology which allows direct participation in the activation of the targeted suspects’ sensors. This is the end of privacy as we know it, the film ‘Minority Report’ in steroids.

Coercive Measures and the Use of “No-Touch Torture”

In Finland, military intelligence confirmed on 06.05.2021 [16] that some of their coercive measures are similar to the ones used in the local law enforcement. More interestingly, the article confirms that the district court (of Helsinki) regulates the use of coercive measures which in turn may be interpreted that the judicial system in Finland allows the use of military tactics that are sometimes referred to as “no-touch torture” (torture caused without visible connection to the targeted) to be used to target the Finnish citizens. In view of the fact that law treats any torture or intentionally caused pain as a crime (Rikoslaki Ch 11 §9a among the UN Convention against Torture) in Finland, the arrangement is somewhat disputable. Another trick to hold back the argument on war crime?

In Finland, the chiefs of military and law enforcement select the technologies used under coercive measures and self-supervise the utilisation of these. It is indeed wishful thinking that the lawmakers, law practitioners and politicians approving the use of the technologies would also understand them. Some targets have been targeted for decades even though the permitted period is supposed to be 6 months each time before renewal. The renewal process would not stand any closer evaluation. The law enforcement officers manufacture the evidence to present the suspect in a negative frame. There is no alternative explanation on why the same targets are under the execution for decades unless, they are the targets of military exercise. The former ptotocol is called target manufacturing. It surely seems the technologies have become a punitive instrument for the political and administrative cultures.

One acknowledged problem seems to be the new surveillance law that allows the use of resonance technologies together with counter-terrorism laws which in turn allows the removal of civil rights. Finnish Defence Forces (FDF) are investing in cyberwar in the future [17] and confirms that AI is involved in order to handle significant amounts of data. The terminology appear to cause problems with interpretation since the term “cyberwar” has been used in the media to cover resonance methodologies also. Bear in mind the ICT sector is a part of the mass surveillance structure and 5G infra based on resonance technologies. Since 10bn Euros is being invested in the new fighter jet fleet which in turn supports cybertechnologies by multifunctional radar systems it is clear the technology is in use. Kivinen, the Chief of Defence, states that in developing a cyber defence programme the Finnish Defence Forces co-operate with other members of the EU cyber defence projects [17]. It was brought to the knowledge of Finnish Prime Minister Antti Rinne in 2019 that what mistakenly is called cyber weaponry instead of anti-personnel EW technologies were being used to target civilians and even children. Rinne publicly aimed a reminder to the Chief of Defence who in turn publicly mentioned the technology related to an international war exercise [18]. As it has been brought to the discussion earlier the EU seems to have security policies that conflict with human rights and indeed, with the EU policies for human rights. Since the EU does not possess an organised military compartment or co-ordination for the common defence the EU member nations practice with who they will. Human rights are left under the observation of the military in this war exercise, a light operation if any.

Since the views of targets have not been heard in preparation of the surveillance and counter-terrorism laws in the EU, the understanding of the technology is based on military reviews. This is an excellent reason why targeted should be heard by lawmakers, law practitioners, and politicians instead of copying military methodologies from other societies supported by massive lobbying. If not legal risks, at least political and reputational risks will acknowledged by the Governments of the EU [17, 20, 26]. The use of these weapons should be regulated more aggressively and indeed, take into account that the same targeted civilians, shockingly, remain the targets of international war exercises for years, as long as their physiology can withstand for the attacks of the energy weapons.

The Intelligence Ombudsman in Finland supervises the legality of civil and military intelligence and the realisation of basic and human rights in intelligence activities (The Act on the Oversight of Intelligence Gathering entered into force in February 2019) states the website of the Intelligence Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has produced recently (05.05.2021) a second opinion on the operations of military intelligence and intelligent services in Finland according to which he approves the operations. The Intelligence Ombudsman is aware of the use of the technologies brought to discussion in this report in Finland. He has been presented with 26 accounts of personal reports of targeted civilians on Finnish soil. These technologies have been used on the targeted well before the surveillance law came into force. An independent external review is suggested on the surveillance laws in the EU as there is no consistency among them. Similarly, the coercive measures used and the principles on what basis they are being used on civilians in the EU [20, 23, 26] should be put under review.

The Rights of the Targeted

Governments may mistake their citizens as enemies in the same way that an immune system may lose its ability to distinguish between the body’s own cells and pathogens. ” [21]

The above is a very polite articulation of the fact that human targets are required to develop military technologies. The targets are approved through a judicial system that operates law approved by politicians and lawmakers. By practice, we know that most of the targeted individuals are manufactured targets and presented in a frame that has very little to do with reality in order to allow the use of counter-terrorism and mass surveillance laws.

If an intelligence law is not well-conceived and rational, it could easily become a formidable weapon of repression. An intelligence law should not only protect citizens against terrorism, but also against the State… There is a total absence of control in this law.” M Trevidic [23]

The EU security strategy has been impacted by the Western agenda for anti-terrorism and allows such resonance technologies to be utilised under the law enforcement and intelligence operations of its member countries against the earlier knowledge of the topic (art. 30 Resolution on the Environment, Security and Foreign Policy from January 28, 1999, Nr.A4-005/99) to civilians. No human rights, no rights of the accused nor legal protection is respected in the process to which civilians are exposed. Constitutional rights are removed by these counter-terrorism acts. The counter-terrorism laws and mass surveillance laws both are used against democracy and human rights. The suspects do not have rights nor legal protection against coercive measures. In fact, the suspects have been stripped of their rights during the implementation of this protocol. The accused supposedly have rights (ignored), the rights of the accused, however, only a very few ever are being accused. The unconditional nature of implementation indicates it is not about seeking the truth under district court approval but the aim is to degrade the individual. It takes time for civilian targets to recognise their life is over as they used to know it. Dramatically enough no instance informs targets of their amended status in society. Even members of families with small children are placed under the torture scheme in which situation everyone is affected physically and psychologically (an acknowledgement based on empirical observation).

“As Lord Hoffmann noted in a concurring opinion in A Secretary of State for the Home Department, ”The real threat . . . comes not from terrorism but from [practices] such as these.””[21] referring to the impact of counter-terroristic measures in the society.

The Torture

Why torture? The CIA claims it works. The assumption is that it works to gain actionable intelligence. Torture is often used for revenge, punishment, interrogation, and behavior modification. In other terms torture is used to remove the continuity of thought to confuse the target to reveal information, erase brain patterns such as values and beliefs, or to break down the human spirit to make them submit and obey their handlers.” [7]

– Robert Duncan – “Neuropsychological and electronic “no-touch torture”. The spectrum of “interrogation” and torture techniques used by the US and its allies”

Neuropsychological and electronic “no-touch torture” [7, 9] is used as the spectrum of “interrogation” and torture techniques by the US and its allies says Robert Duncan, a former CIA analyst and engineer, who has been developing such methodologies as a CIA, DoD engineer. Robert has an opinion the neurotech mass surveillance technology is indeed a WMD.

The intelligence agents can also use low level microwaves to cause mental and physical confusion that leads to illness. Beaming microwaves at victims makes them fatigued, damages their immune system, causes neurological damage that affects their thinking and ability to carry out tasks, induces premature aging, cancer, and cataracts. ” T Rifat. [22]

The mass surveillance neurotechnological weaponry causes a spectrum of effects depending on the computer program, the technology chosen, and the team running the execution. It may be sensible to make a note that we are indeed talking about piezoelectric mechanisms [25] (NB. Figure 15. Piezoelectric energy harvesting from the human body) within the human body (biochemical balance within the body e.g. various proteins electrically reacting towards each other). Antioxidants alleviate the potential risks of EMF exposures [24]. The following effects are reported among others [13]: Synthetic telepathy (reading and broadcasting of thoughts), microwave hearing, forced visions some synched with body motion, forced memory blanking, controlled dreams, forced waking visions, artificial tinnitus, wildly racing heart at rest, forced muscle quaking, the sensation of tapping, intense general pain or hot-needles-pushed-deep-into-flesh sensations, sensations of electrical shocks, burning sensations, intense pain in a larger area of body e.g. face or chest (technical capability to amend the spread of the beam as well as the spectrum), special attention to the genital area; itching, forced orgasms, intense pain, forced thoughts and feelings and sleep deprivation (sleep being constantly disturbed with the above).

In Finland, a survey of a population of nearly 100 victims of Electronic Warfare anti-personnel applications was taken in 2020-21. The research involved questionnaires and interviews and produced very consistent information on the symptoms and observations of the victims. Reported health damages and symptoms appeared to be far more serious than what was expected. There also seems to be an apparent division of symptoms and observations by different executions of DEW and neuropsychological resonances. The findings of this research will be published in another context; however, it can be noted here that the following psychological disorders or physical symptoms were reported among others: Memory lapse, PTSD, long-term stress, panic attack, state of fear, severe depression, suicidal thoughts, paranoia, schizophrenia, anxiety, lack of concentration, ADHD, sleep deprivation, desire for sex /food etc, cardiac arrhythmia, headache, hearing voices, sensation of disturbance in cognitive processes, orgasms, erections, sensation of pressure in brains, pain in eyes, chest pain, difficulty to breathe, stomack pain, digestive problems, temporary paralysis, pain in genitals, twitches, sudden increase in blood pressure, brain fog, neurological symptoms, strokes, tinnitus, sensations of burns, temporary feelings of blood clots and numbness anywhere in the body, cosmetic injuries such as burnt skin and physical and psychological exhaustion among other. The targets reported that their head, heart or genital area was attacked the most. In addition, some Electronic Warfare anti-animal attacks have been conducted to their pets and anti-material attacks were reported in which mobile devices or computers were either used remotely or entirely damaged their hard discs. In connection to preparing this documentation many methods were conducted to potentially prevent the submission of this material. Many targeted people have reportedly been targets of an attempted murder also. The dilemma here is that potential injury cannot be connected to the resonance technologies. Another argument being used by the supporters of the neuropsychological technologies is that whenever there is pain, no injury has necessarily taken place. The definition of torture is based on the concept of experiencing pain. Therefore, whether the pain is physically caused or ‘only’ the idea of pain being delivered to the brains, the pain is still being experienced.

The long-term effects are not well published expept for long-term sleep deprivation which is a major catalyst to changes in the human body causing, for instance, high blood sugar and other signs of exceptions leading to long-term diseases. The radiation may impose a threat on internal organs, especially the liver and heart. An exposure to radiation in the long-term is very likely to cause heart diseases such as cardiac muscle inflammation which in turn may cause the failure of the heart muscle. Exhaustion seems to be one of the common symptoms that also was shown in the results of the Finnish research.

If anyone was to argue that the aforementioned symptoms were based on civil applications, such as the 5G or electricity grid, they are not entirely wrong. The ICT (information communications technology) infrastructure is being utilised within these operations; together with electricity, radar, and satellite technologies they create a strong electromagnetic field that enables the surveillance and introduction of “brainwaves” and what not. It is however, the effect of the radar that amplifies within the strong electromagnetic field and causes the symptoms by signals delivered via satellites and ICT network. Due to the nature of the scientific research, the findings are kept secret and the health concerns remain unpublished to cover the economic model within the industry. The business model is a cash cow and supports also related industries and business models. The symptoms reported in the Finnish research are consistent, the experiences are similar and indicate a clear correlation of the presence of strong electromagnetic fields. Such an electromagnetic field requires radar or antenna series for targeting. Also the observations on the use of OTHR (over-the-horizon-radar) and satellite delivery correlate with the symptoms. The impacts of long-lasting combined microwave exposure on the human body may not have been adequately investigated and approved by the medical scientific society. It seems it is the currently targeted population which produces this critical empirical knowledge since the biometrics are available for reading at all times. The Military/ Intelligence/ Private sector execution seems more interested in the development of their projects, in the development of AI and in spying on civilian targets as well as the profits produced, than in the health and wellbeing of the targeted people. The cortex is being stimulated by overlapping applications and new “products” are constantly being developed. By now the audience should acknowledge that the radar technology eanbles 360-degree imaging of the target.

Neurological research found the brain to have specific frequencies for each voluntary movement called preparatory sets. By firing at your chest with a microwave beam containing the ELF signals given off by the heart, this organ can be put into a chaotic state, the so-called heart attack.” – T. Rifat [22]

The aforementioned effects reconcile well with the methods of interrogation and behavior modification illustrated by R Duncan in his report on torture [7] where Duncan introduces 18 tactics of torture that can be implemented via physical or “no-touch torture”. ”Coercing and torturing people to suicide is very common. Both tactics in physical or no-touch torture involves plausible deniability.”[7]

The Target Selection

The problem is persistent since there is a vastly growing number of operations that aim to benefit neuro-invasive technologies. There are private AI developers in the sector and many of them are known for entirely another type of consumer products. As a result of long-running operations their resources have developed a pattern of excellence and now are looking to gain a technological advantage in neuroscience and supercomputing. Some corporations or countries may own satellites which in turn allow a significant access to the field of research. These companies consider their employees as a resource by clauses in their contract of employment that allow the use of “brain data” in form of any inventions made by the employees.

A significant amount of States are utilizing the technology and having a “brainrace” causing perhaps overlapping execution on international individuals since there are also a number of individual government agencies whose operations may be run from their independent facilities. This explains the vast increase in the headcount of targeted individuals. The law enforcement body involving the prosecution and judicial system is becoming dependent on the technology which is likely used during trials and pre-trial examinations already.

The resonance methodologies have their roots in military technologies. Recently, the security sector and law enforcement agencies have owned the technology and the defense industry has developed new applications [10]. Also, international white-collar organizations such as the NSA under the national Foreign Ministries’ military wing, the DSA, execute the operations [12]. The technology is operated by the military using multifunctional radar signal intelligence for law enforcement and intelligence community (DSA) white-collar agencies acting as their ”clientele”. NSA officers can globally flag any individual and set them up under the execution without hearing the person. The justice systems and law enforcement agencies are used actively to get hold of the citizen to manufacture them a target [11]. The targeted are not informed of their amended status as a suspect which in turn prevents the target to kick-start legal action. Supervising instances are claiming to use legal protection and reminder of remedies the society may offer. It is difficult to get a message across that no tricks are left, no authority takes responsibility. Taking the matter into the court which has just approved the use of the methodologies sounds illogical. Usually, terrorism, national threat, or serious crime are being used as the excuse to approve the use of the technologies under the coercive measures [17]. In doing so, it seems the EU acting as an ally also is unaware it backs the implementation of the anti-democratic measure that ignores citizens’ human rights, the international rights of the accused, and leaves the targets without legal protection and due process. No questions being asked from the individual themselves.

Since the manufacturing of the targets seems relatively careless and no oversight committee or set of regulations or auditable institution is monitoring how targets are being selected, the protocol may be used for an extension of personal and political, even economical interests. Picking and setting up random targets, no legal groundings necessary. Certainly, dissidents, activists, or whistleblowers are not there by accident. Random people, people who have been in the wrong place at the wrong time are selected to reach the critical mass, the amount of targets to allow for technological breakthrough. The execution does not seem to have a deadline. Anyone could become the future’s target; the extrajudicial implementation does not recognize social statuses, unless social scoring is involved. The targeted people will experience their life being demolished in all areas, holistically, and therefore, their profile is on the downhill. The execution of such a program requires inter-and cross-governmental implementation, hence the “international torture program”. The targeting is inhumane, unjust, unreasoned, and unaccountable [1].

It may well be that the private sector acts as the developer of the product and runs the experiment whereas the governments are backing the research and delivering the resources, the brains in the execution of neurological mass surveillance.

The Human Rights Issues

Obviously, silencing dissidents, oppositions of political parties, and whistleblowers are included in the lists of applications. The most disturbing of the trends in torture is testing and improving it. No-touch torture is much more complex than physical torture. Testing design flaws and weaknesses of the signal intelligence is one reason why it is necessary to test on innocent targets.” [7]

The usage of resonance technologies is observed to be at times politically orientated, or not adequately justified, and is always questionable, strongly subjugating human rights or constitutional rights let alone moral aspects. This is because i) the technology produces a spectrum of pain in the target (and injuries of which some fatal), ii) sleep deprivation in long term preventing full participation in society, iii) the technology is being directed towards civilians (against the Geneva Convention), iv) the technology is being utilized without the permission or consent of the targeted person (against the Nuremberg Treaty), v) the operations lean on self-supervision and monitoring to the extent the human rights aspects are not being considered appropriately (no measures on corruption), vi) the technology is being directed to people inhumanly while asleep and vii) towards bystanders (especially children while also asleep disturbing their sleep and causing them pain), viii) the technology is being directed to homes of the targeted citizens (against constitutional rights for privacy, domestic peace, etc), ix) the period the technologies are being implemented to targets is matter-of-factly inhuman, reportedly from less than a decade up to 30 years (in which time most of the targets are forced outside of their societies and health, social structure, career, and families have all been destroyed), x) the technology may cause fatal injuries that are impossible to trace back to the usage of this technology and xi) torture, definition, of which the use of this methodology fulfills, hardly is an argumentative solution. Finally, xii) targets do not possess constitutional rights, nor legal protection from the practitioner or executor of this torture on them since it is with significant likelihood the local or other government. In addition, xiii) law enforcement and healthcare have been instructed to deny the matter. Local regulators, political power, legislators, and courts approving the use are not understanding and aware of these aspects due to the fact that the military traditionally has been the only institution with this knowledge. Yet this technology has lobbied its way into our societies. The substantial list of shortcomings above leads us to conclude the technologies have not been adequately investigated. The lawmakers, practioners, politicians have only listened to the military and law enforcement arguments as the marketer of these technologies [4].

Legal Issues

Under the anti-terrorism agenda, the constitution and human rights can be occluded, it seems, by the declaration of War on Terror which yet allows derogation of the civil rights on a temporary basis only [21]. When a civilian is targeted by goverment and presented as a terrorist they can be exposed, it seems, to methods of interrogation (e.g. coercive measures neurotech mass surveillance). This derogation should be however a temporary measure. How is it explained that some individuals have been targeted for a decade and more? Indeed, the neurotech mass surveillance is a “no-touch torture” protocol that causes long periods of serious pain, suffering, and even fatalities. By now we should agree that the execution is conducted as a counter-terrorism measure.

The European Convention on Human Rights requires that a member state availing itself of the derogation clause inform the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe of the measures the state has taken and the reasons for them.” [21]

Although the idea of temporality is not expressed in the derogation provisions of the ICCPR or the European Human Rights Convention, it has been understood to have been implied by the notion of emergency. According to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, article four of the ICCPR requires that “measures derogating from the provisions of the Covenant . . . be of an exceptional and temporary nature.“[21] and ““Derogations from human rights obligations are permitted in order to deal with emergencies. They are intended to be temporary.’” Thus, the suspension of ordinary processes must end when the emergency that required the suspension ceases to exist.“[21] The targeted under counter-terrorism law could argue that the temporary state has been maintained for purpose since no evidence of terrorism has been found for those accused. In a case where implementation has taken 10 years, the government should be prosecuted for inefficiency in dealing with the matter and thus, violating human rights. This is hardly a temporary measure in the aspect of human life.

Currently, there are no specific laws protecting humans or animals, neither any medical support for them, during cybernetic torture. “The situation is created by the fact that scientists do not leave any information about the illegal mind reading technologies.” How should “we protect people that by utilitarian grounds, without informed consent, are used for brain studies with brain-computer-interfaces in Cyber Psychological Systems, illegal stealing of brain data” [13]?

In view of the above intellectual rights are important but the human rights violations probably the core of concern. It seems governments have agreed with a single-minded informal agreement that they have the right to remove legal protections from the citizens. They have interpreted that in certain circumstances (that have been artificially created by themselves) they have the right to degrade the human rights, constitutional rights and strip the citizens of legal protection. The torture and inhumane, unjust, unreasoned, and unaccountable targeting [1] may lead to significant compensation requests from the victims for the use of WMD mass surveillance protocols once they become organized. The UN should support this idea. The periods under execution seem to be unlimited which demonstrates the enslaving nature of the implementation.

There is simply no privacy at all when the privacy of thoughts, feelings, senses, and life overall is demolished. The targets’ households are trespassed physically and technologically, and subjected to domestic disturbance from outside by the resonances (some evidence on this will be published in connection with the field examination). No government is capable of replacing what has been taken away from these people. The terror in their life has been unspeakable. What about the immaterial rights such as the stolen brain data?

“Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2000) states that “Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected”.”

The Psychic Driving/System Programming

States have used the same tactics for centuries to put away activists and dissidents who do not buy into the explanations of the power elite and publicly challenge the administration. The targeted people are many times activists, whistleblowers, or dissidents in addition to random people. During the execution of the “no-touch torture program [7]”, targeted individuals are being treated as mentally ill by the government. The police and healthcare, who are the emergency services, the first point of contacts, have been programmed to handle these patients with a certain presumption. The programming, or inadequate education/ omission of the education, is a part of the design of the torture program [9]. States have a national manual of diseases where identical symptoms the targeted experience have been added indicating alleged neurosis / mental illnesses that correlate with medication designed to worsen the condition of the targeted and strengthening the impact of the resonance. Doctors do find themselves in a helpless position with neurotechnology victims since the illnesses could be induced into the patient [6]. Linking specific medicines with microbiological structured molecules a desired impact can be delivered on the purposed area of the brain. Also, nanotechnologies can be used to deliver nanotechnological engineering into the brains [28]. These are used in combination with EMF resonances to activate certain viruses, bacteria, even cells, synapses to deliver their function. Dr. J. Giordano also specifies neurotoxins that can be used to gain a certain effect. This technology can force the human brain to think certain thoughts, feel certain emotions, and can theoretically override motor control functions. This knowledge must have been obtained by investigating human bio-effects and experiences.

By specialising on the pulse frequency you could induce psychiatric ilnesses to the point where a psychatrist could not tell if it is a genuine psychiatric illness or an induced psychiatric illness.” – Barry Trower – Microwave Warfare.

The body is an electromagnetic chemical reaction. Yes, chemicals like drugs can help the body and be used as countermeasures to electromagnetically induced problems. Drugs can be used to affect the body’s electrical-chemical processes.” – R. Duncan, How to Tame a Demon – A Short Practical Guide to Organized Imtimidation Stalking, Electronic Torture, and Mind Control

Many States maintain laws under which the patients can be forced to receive medication and mental help when deemed necessary (by labels of neurosis, imminent threat of violence, self-harm, etc). Due to the inter-and cross-governmental nature of the implementation, the treatment is being coordinated from a co-ordinative structure above the staff treating the patient. The entire process can be evaluated by the supervisory co-ordinative team and depending on the content that the patient discloses as well as his/her behavior the team makes the decision on the most practical plan for him/her. Medication can be used to assist neurotechnological implementation[17]. In some societies, implantable devices are injected into the targeted civilians to assist the chemical balance or observation of the biometrics. These military developed devices are not painless either whilst nowadays merely replaced by nanotechnological materials that may be only inconveniencing to digestion.

The biological and socio-psychological aspects of the targeted’s lives are heavily influenced. Many are pushed outside of their societies and the social networks that are crucial for well-being. A target that intends to disclose the program may experience imminent measures of discrediting or a form of punitive measures that strips social status from the target. Informal reporting and social scoring by the administration is impacted immediately which also derogates the rights of the targeted. They become outlawed. The accused have rights, the rights of the accused but the suspects do not have any. The term “suspect” refers to the removal of civil rights and being made a target. They are profiled internationally and presented as a terrorist, serious criminal, or national threat. The torture that has many faces and sides may go on for decades, in which time the target has lost his social status, fellows, health, financial sustainability, earning model, and credibility.

When the target intends to approach separate parts of the administration to deliver information on potential consipiracy and illegal government activity it is imperative the target has a well argumented, well-written and comprehensible statement to deliver intended content since their profile will be attacked severely by those in the administration who lobby on behalf of the implementation of mass surveillance. Measures will also be taken to prevent any electronic submissions or hard copies delivery to authorities. The informal nature of the execution and coercive measures ensure that the targeted cannot defend themselves against implementation that does not officially exist.

Indeed, an annulment is a common practice. It has become visible and reported that some implementations of systematic programming of discrimination are directed towards the same bloodline or family over the generations. Genetic information hardly provides us a decent explanation for this type of execution.

There are governments with a significant number of totalitarian attributes that have disguised themselves as a democracy. It goes without saying the social sector of administration supports the governmental agenda and is in a position to set up any individual with a variety of methods. Similarly, the judicial system that not only regulates the use of coercive measures but also operates a governmental agenda as the steering mechanism in relation to these individuals. A target cannot possibly receive objective and equal treatment in court. The judicial system reflects the will of the Government.

The method by which the CIA and intelligence community control masses and MSM is to publish fiction that involves similar elements that are involved in the news they want to deny or shut down. They create stories and mix them with the original report (in this case my analysis) and because the topic is complicated the masses are unable to separate the two, only a marginal audience understands what is going on.

There are countless tactics to discredit individual revelations made in media. A common tactic is to descredit the author/content of a revelation that is harmful to government. Another trick is to confuse the original message to an imaginary content that has similar elements. Perhaps involving aliens or conspiracy models that ridicule or make fun of the actual revelation.

Controlling the public is a game of capturing the opinion of masses by using MSM (main stream media). Governments are participating in the information war (between governments) and propaganda (inside the nation) either by direct or indirect ownership of the media. “Regulation, legislation, physical attacks, and threats against journalists or media owners are effective methods used to capture the media. But funding is arguably the  most effective method of all. By financing media and journalists willing to toe the government line and by not funding independent, critical media, authorities manage to suppress large parts of  the media sector.” [10, 36]”

The Technology

Resonance methodologies are at the core of Electronic Warfare (EW) operations. DEW, AW, RNM/RMI/EEG, and V2K are tactics being used on targets under anti-personnel execution. DEW and AW are purposed to cause physical injuries whereas the neurotechnological applications used under AI mass surveillance programs such as NRM/RMI/EEG cause psychological effects and pain. RNM Remote Neural Monitoring is used along with the EEG for cloning the neurostructures of the target. A heterodyne is a signal frequency that is generated by combining or mixing two other frequencies using a signal processing technique called heterodyning. Heterodyning is utilised to shift one frequency range into another, new frequency range, and is also involved in the processes of modulation and demodulation. Heterodyning and technology based on TMS (Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation) can be used for the synthetic telepathy. Neurotechnological implementation can be fatal in multiple ways it can drive the targeted to suicidal thoughts but it also has physical health effects that may weaken the body and immune system of the targeted in the long term fatally. V2K can also be produced in a multiple ways but one of the most sophisticated ones is as an AI computer software, developed to learn, which can communicate with the target in real-time and read their memory, thoughts and is able to manipulate targets psychologically and emotionally [13]. The V2K can be used for behavior modification when the technology is based on a psychiatric medical technology called Neurofeedback – EEG Biofeedback. The software acts as an alternative roadmap for the brain (an AI software accesses brain waves emitted by the brain ie ELF waves) by harvesting brainwaves when the brain reacts negatively and the cloning this type of brain wave (ELF waves). V2K technology can be used to clone or mime different medical pathologies, including psychiatric ones. This is why many targets are diagnosed with Schizophrenia or other mental illness. When the use of mobile device emissions is introduced to affect a targeted brain we are in uncontrolable territory.

The operational implementation does not differ. The resonances are delivered from multifunctional radars (active electronically scanned array [AESA]) or antennas on any platform, also by using satellite targeting. Similar radar antennas are used in fighter jets. Networks similar to GWEN (Ground Wave Emergency Network) can be used to create EMPs. In DEW implementation the effect is based on transmitted high amplified energy pulses that cause pain or injuries, even fatalities. Physical obstacles may be overcome by maser technology. In the neurotechnological implementation, the impact is based on heterodyne which combines by intermodulation (two alternating signals, eg radio signals) to produce two or more signals having frequencies corresponding to the sum and the difference of the original frequencies that cause pain or the wanted effect in the target. Depending on the purpose there are custom-designed handheld platforms to be used inside buildings also. An electromagnetic field is created around the target to read the target’s biometrics and run them in a computer simulation in real-time that aims to clone and link the targeted brains. The computer program executes a chosen torture method for interrogation and behavior modification and to the targeted, the execution naturally appears entirely ruthless and cruel. This means the entire process is being automated [7, 9]. Also entire thought patterns, feelings, and images can be induced to the target [6]. The concern in view of the future is whether the transmitting technology will be integrated with our handheld ICT technology and its infrastructure. The handheld mobile devices may already emit resonances below 100Hz that are closely linked to our biology.

DEW (directed energy weapons) can be broadly defined as systems that produce “a beam of concentrated electromagnetic energy or atomic or subatomic particles” which is used as a direct means to incapacitate, injure or kill people, or to incapacitate, degrade, damage or destroy objects [3]. Execution by microwaves, lasers, masers and particles.

AW (acoustic weapons) Acoustic weapons aim to use the propagation of sound – a variation in pressure that travels through a fluid medium (such as air) to affect a target. Most of the acoustic weapons that have been speculated upon are based on either ultrasound (above 20 kilohertz, kHz),

low frequencies (below 100 hertz, Hz) or infrasound (below 20 Hz) deployed at high levels. The human range of hearing is commonly given as between 20 Hz and 20 kHz. In reality, the upper hearing-threshold frequency decreases significantly with age, whereas sounds with lower frequencies can be heard and otherwise perceived if the level is high enough[2].

We should not forget the ionosphere radar or over the horizon radar (“OTHR”) of which the most famous is the HAARP (The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) which is capable of producing a very high amount of energy in beams and wanted resonance to exact locations at any time. Other nations have revealed their concern with regard to this. HAARP is located in Gakona, Alaska, and was developed by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). Another OTHR is EISCAT in Longyearbyen, Norway which was originally designed by France, Germany, and the three Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, and Finland). The Targets in Finland have seen evidence of weather modification as well as traces in the clouds as a marker of the use of OTHR and satellite co-ordination beaming. In view of the European Parliament Resolution on the Environment, Security and Foreign Policy from January 28, 1999, Nr.A4-005/99 art 30 states “Calls in particular for an international convention for a global ban on all research and development, whether military or civilian, which seeks to apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other functioning of the human brain to the development of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings, including a ban on any actual or possible deployment of such systems.” Is it a coincidence that the commonly operated facility has been set into a country that locates in Europe but is not a member of the EU?

When delivering resonances that imitate body functions a satellite becomes a very operative assistance and used seamlessly with the execution of OTHR. Especially for these radar systems, living human targets are a necessity to develop the operating systems, their accuracy, amount of energy directed, and before anything the psychological impact on the individual. A spontaneous EKG can potentially discover the operation whereas a planned scrutiny for healthcheck results in a pause in the execution of the beaming.

The entire multilayer strategy of implementation involves remote execution with satellites and OTHR, local operation by field operatives with a gangstalking element from ordinary local people hired from social media, as well as the utilisation of the ICT infrastructure via mobile devices and the mobile antenna infrastructure. The latter is controlled by software applications that are run within the network. A huge step forward in synthetic telepathy has been the introduction of nanotechnology which has greatly assisted the transportation of AI technology to human brains but also facilitated the access to brains from AI frameworks [34, 35].

The Agenda

You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.

– George W Bush on 6.11.2001

It is breathtaking how few politicians have understood the larger picture. The anti-terrorism movement by states is an agenda that allows the rights of citizens to be removed for the greater “good of the State” and therefore, a very unconstitutional movement. The strategy, however, was at first implemented by the Western coalition ’Five-Eyes’ to hijack the foreign and security policies of targeted nations, including the allies in the EU. The Western coalition finger-pointed allies saying there is a terroristic activity spotted within the population of the EU countries defining who is a terrorist and what is a terroristic act. Something the European leaders should quickly accomplish is figure out whether they have been treated as allies or subservients by Western Five Eyes coalition manufacturing targets and addressing to the EU member nations that they have citizens with terroristic tendencies (naturally artificial and false accusations) which in turn may be used to force the foreign and security policy of the EU member nations to remove reputational risk and potential risk of conflict. We quote a journalist from RT Neil Clark’s article [14]on 25 Feb, 2021: ”The ‘War on Terror’ was based on a fundamental deceit. It was a deep state/neocon con trick. Not only was it a war that could never be won, it was never meant to be won. It was meant to be permanent.” Indeed, the idea of the anti-terrorism agenda is the declaration of war on those who beg to differ by opinion. There should be only one interpretation of the world events and no exception to the “Western” one is tolerated. The bully-tempered narrow-mindedness quite often leads to a point where sensible analysis is not conducted. There is no need to disagree to juxtapose.

The agenda is an imperialistic tool to force governments to operate similar foreign policies and line up with the West. To make the EU a participant in the War on Terror and bring the conflict onto the European soil. Originally terrorism has been an inconvenience of those nations practicing imperialistic and clumsy foreign policies intervening in the internal politics of other nations. Now, the EU is taking moral responsibility for this against better understanding.

We do not need conflict in the EU and our younger generations should be psychologically free of this type of liability.

There are several pillars to this operation. Strategies are linked to the technological advantage of the Western technology. Signing up as a user a nation agrees with certain conditions and integrates the operations. This happens for the sake of maintenance alone. For instance, for fighter jet fleets, which carry multifunctional radars, their maintenance and updating require a common technological strategy. States which purchase fighter jet fleets will be committed to one strategy due to the maintenance and development of the system. It is a deep integration of defense strategies.

Terrorism, serious crime, a national threat is used as the rationale to justify the manufacturing of the targets to European allies. Must say the manufacturing of the consent has been a bit careless not to forget the implementation. The Western military-intelligence complex coup has won the intelligence communities over by their advanced technology. An average American taxpayer supports the military industry to the extent that equals the cost of free healthcare. By creating suspects in each nation the Western coalition has been enabled to a) force the State to take care of the terrorism and b) offer the Government technology to be used in connection with this which in turn means more dollars for the military complex. Manufacturing targets is a trillion-dollar plan since their resources can be linked to develop AI. “The more brains you have collected in your pool the better AI you will be able to develop”.

Terrorism is indeed a very gloomy and poisonous projection to deliver to our next generation which has already been psychologically affected by the speech of terrorism constantly present in the MSM. We may not be able to estimate the damage caused but we could do something to stop building horrible scenarios. It is indeed recommended that this bellicose agenda is abandoned since the rest of the world, especially our new generation, do not wish to live under such a narrow-minded scenario. A return to international democracy is recommended.

What will the Governments do next to defend their position? It is apparent that so far some of the terroristic attacks in Western societies have been provoked if not financially and operationally supported by Western intelligence itself. We would not expect to see this level of governmental radicalism anymore. The strategy of governments will be to temporarily rate higher the threat of terrorism so that any criticism would not question their undertakings. The Western governments will put the curriculum vitae of their funded researchers (eg Magnus Ranstorp) against those who have been forced to independently investigate the field. This is to the benefit of the researchers since they strengthen their position and ego in supporting the idea of War on Terror. They market the war on behalf of terrorism. It is better to have war to cover the agenda than admit the imperialistic effort to control global population. This is a fight between David and Goliath and the Goliath owns the MSM (mainstream media). Also. the MSM is turned selectively towards other areas of interest.

War on Terror? Not exactly. The methodologies used to harness innocent individuals for something so evil as WMD targeting them are a crime against humanity. We must re-think the role of Western surveillance within society not alone the supervision and monitoring aspects. The execution appears as Robert Duncan (CIA officer and engineer) illustrates[17]: ’It was a clever tactic used by the Germans in WWII to take people away slowly so no revolt occurred. As one CIA agent says, “The Nazis didn’t lose the war they just had to move.” It is not about the Jews now. It is something much more complex and evil’. One should hope the Covid-19 pandemic is not an agenda to enhance governmental control over individuals [14]. Oh no, it is not. There is a chance that it is indeed a part of the very same operation to deliver access to brains of the population.

A senior officer J. Karsikas responsible for digitalisation in the Finnish Defence Forces states that considering super powers it is unlikely they would commit themselves in any regulation and ratify any international agreements in the development of AI [27]. This is due to the fact that AI technologies may constitute the next strategic advantage.

Conclusion

What is the most disappointing aspect of the Electronic Warfare between superpowers, in which populations and individuals are constantly targeted by military technologies is that for these living targets who have become the instruments of global war, no government seems to have a social sector strategy? No civil defence strategy. Societies have created multimillion Euro plans to cover the infrastructure, but the civilian targets are left to die, not being overly dramatic. A meritocratic society is programmed to think there is something seriously wrong with these individuals which leads to isolation of the targeted individuals. That is as intimidating as is the implementation of WMDs. The lack of will to improve the lives and circumstances of the victims speaks thousands of words.

Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism.” – Noam Chomsky

Electronic Warfare (EW) anti-personnel resonance-based applications that cause pain, suffering, even fatalities are being directed to civilians globally by means of energy- and psychological effects. The governments responsible for the implementation, under which the execution is operated, are utilizing at diversity of military platforms to conduct these operations based on the resonance spectrum. The “Torture Program” is based on the idea of using pain and suffering as a stimulant, an instrument of interrogation to cause a reaction in the targets. The operation is to intentionally cause pain and suffering in its targets for a prolonged period of time. Scientists are in opinion the technological implementation should be reviewed as a weapon of mass destruction. It is a technical legal aspect of international laws of human rights whether the operation should be viewed as a war crime. Execution of a technology that causes pain and suffering, even fatalities, in innocent civilians and bystanders, even children, is now left to supercomputers to run? We are seeing the evidencing of a phenomenon that reminds me in detail of the human experiments during the WWII conducted by Nazis. Even the public demonstrates similar ignorance and prejudice. It seems this psychological cycle repeats itself in human history when a part of the society comes to think of itself as “too invincible”. A result of meritocracy. It is imperative to acknowledge the vast increase in numbers of targeted civilians indicates a widespread attack on human rights.

The resonance spectrum-based technology that now abuses human targets had been developed to its full potential in the midst of the 1970s. The knowledge was kept tight in the military instead of considering civil applications. The War on Terror offered a suitable basis for an imperialistic global agenda and strategy of implementation. The mass surveillance neurotechnology is operated under the agenda of the Western coalition to force new order among states. Anti-terrorism as an agenda is an unconstitutional plan of the Western coalition not only to strengthen sovereign state power at the expense of human rights and democratic systems through surveillance and counter-terrorism laws but also to hijack the foreign and security policies of other nations. War naturally speeds military spending. And speaking of an entirely new niche of technologies the War on Terror is a blessing to the defense industries. The concept of war has been creatively introduced to legally eclipse human rights and democratic decision-making. The erosion of the Constitution is significant.

As for private citizens in terms of pain and suffering caused also their rights have been removed under the counter-terrorism and mass surveillance acts. Suspects do not have the rights of the accused since they will never be accused instead, they have been stripped of their civil rights complete families affected at once. Measures that were purposed as an exceptional and temporary tool to deal with emergencies are now used on an unlimited basis under surveillance laws. It is clear the aforementioned laws are abused to target innocent people. A significant majority of the targeted are not brought to courts of justice and officially accused due to the fact that they are not guilty. These people and their human rights are degraded once abandoned under technology-driven human experiments that remove entirely their privacy and domestic peace. The fact is that individuals’ free will and degree of autonomy are hugely affected. It is the question of a plan with multilayer agenda. It seems that the counter-terrorism and mass surveillance laws are used to manufacture candidates for the human experiment. The selection protocol is inhumane, unjust, unreasoned, and unaccountable. What a convenient tool for governments to root out and yet benefit from the physical existence of political opponents, whistleblowers, activists, or dissidents. At the same time, a significant element of opponents to the political power is being created.

The execution was based on the idea that the targeted would not organize themselves and see through the plan. Now the life cycle of this agenda is different. It is indeed imperative to increase public awareness on the ongoing torture to impact on the life cycle. No totalitarian method can tolerate public awareness as European history points out.

The War on Terror has been successfully used as an extension of the imperialistic foreign policy of foreign nations to destabilize the peace in Europe and the seed of war has been implanted in the soil of the EU. We European citizens do not approve of the War or Terror on European soil. Citizens do find it difficult to believe that European leaders who were supposed to look after the civil rights and peace in Europe are taking a role in such an imperialistic agenda. We expect the EU to be built upon the idea of democracy that guarantees equal rights to everyone. It has been a result of ignorance, shortsightedness, and poor judgment that this sort of plan has gone past our due diligence processes impacting greatly on the future beliefs of young generations who are at the core of well being of any nation.

Making Torture legal is a very questionable agenda. We suggest an urgent review of surveillance laws as well as counter-terrorism laws. The laws have now been used as a punitive measure allowing unequal and inhumane treatment and abuse of civilians by the governments and an underpinning of sovereign state power. The laws have become a formidable weapon of repression. An intelligence law should not only protect citizens against terrorism but also against the State. The modern holocaust has revealed significant weaknesses in our societies. Lawmakers, law practitioners, and politicians, even human rights activists poorly understand the technologies being approved for use on citizens for a prolonged period of time. The role and the strategies of intelligence function in societies European wide should be revisited and some consistency introduced. Military and intelligence functions in eroded society are meant to represent a marginal mechanism, but not the role of the decision-maker. It seems there is a psychological cycle in the collective consciousness of humanity, the need to repeat the pattern of pain and suffering. Perhaps the revised agenda could take a sustainable look to raise the standards of performance we all need to evidence and take part in for the mental growth of the human society. We would choose “trust” among people instead of synthetic telepathy that indeed demonstrates the opposite.

The new generation is experiencing the world as a threatful place today. Continuous airtime on news of terrorism by MSM creates psychological expectations that will last decades. The citizen’s belief in the future is constantly heavily impacted. There are so many areas in society that require improvement that the civilization hardly has time to handle them if crises similar to the War on Terror are intentionally created. I think there might be confusion on where the civilization is going from here. It seems politicians are lost on their way. It is known that beliefs in the future is directly correlated with the well-being and prosperity of national economies. Should the beliefs be a little more positive than they are? One should think the War on Terror hardly is an agenda for a nation looking for well-being to follow. Europeans do not wish to bring the War on Terror to European soil. Therefore, the message for the politicians goes accordingly in terms of foreign and security policies.

The EU should develop its independent defense, especially in terms of technologies, to reduce its dependence on NATO and the Western military-intelligence complex. Therefore the military spending and exercises internally should be coordinated. The EU should seriously review its relation to Western allies, to determine whether the role of European allies is viewed as subservient. The abuse of intelligence operations and aggression in foreign politics that do not respect sovereign EU member nation decision-making as well as the dynamics of ongoing confrontation among powers have taken so many years.

It is apparent the EU has chosen a homeland security strategy that confronts its human rights agenda. Mass surveillance and counter-terrorism laws should be reviewed from the European perspective alone and not as an ally to someone with an imperialistic agenda. The security strategy and following surveillance laws are a result of a poor understanding of Electronic Warfare and its technologies. It would be to the benefit of European democracy to drop the ignorance and bring to the table the representatives of the targeted so that all aspects are indeed understood.

SOME SUGGESTED ELEMENTS FOR A PLAN TO MAKE PROGRESS:

What should be done to prevent the abuse of innocent victims:

1. Increasing awareness of the public of the cybernetic abuse and means of Electronic Warfare being tested on civilians is at the core of tackling the crime against humanity.

2. Breaking the ignorance. It is imperative that the viewpoint and experiences of the targeted must not be ignored or bypassed since understanding the perspective of victims allows for democratic decision making. The victims should be permitted to offer consultation and expertise, the perspective of the targeted to law- and decision-makers for the creation of appropriate EU legislation to protect civil citizens from covert cybernetic crimes and other Electronic Warfare applications.

3. Organisation of the resources. In order to defend the civil rights of the targeted and support the targeted, a global organization should be created which would set up a representation globally for human rights and could enhance “best practices for the establishment of clear ethical boundaries to strictly regulate the use of cyber systems enabling the manipulation and control of human beings” [13].

To be clear, a), no torture should be tolerated, and both torture and “no-touch torture” protocols should NOT be allowed as an interrogation tactic even though “neuro-surveillance” for purposes of safeguarding national security may be intended; b), Surveillance permission- granting process should be adequately and closely monitored. Mass surveillance of innocent citizens should not be allowed; c) The intel gathered in any possible surveillance method should not be misused and only used in the form it has been approved by court. We may need to allow surveillance but no method of neuro-surveillance or bio-surveillance should use targeted pain or pain at all as a catalyst. Also, the surveillance, of whatever kind, should be limited to a 6-month period with renewal permissions significantly tightened to say only 15% of the applications for renewals, firmly overseen, and with detailed, documented reports delineating reasons for applied renewals, which can be audited, overseen, and withdrawn at any time; d) Human rights auditors from outside Intelligence and Security agencies need to be involved in the continuous monitoring and auditing process, to prevent abuse and torture of targets, as we have now; e) No covered experimentation using pain and torture techniques as “sources and methods” of gathering information, as for instance, the US intelligence community [11], and other intelligence agencies and militaries are currently doing, under classified cover, to prevent scrutiny of their torture for neural network mapping and neuro behavior modification. What should be allowed instead are strict protocols, regulation, and monitoring of the intelligence community in place as well as surveillance laws that are consistent globally, and the intelligence community held responsible for potential misconduct.

Global consistence in surveillance laws, country-specific regulations, supervision, and monitoring as well as civil channels for reporting potential misconduct is a good start. What is the problem in the US as K Shipp and W Binney [10, 11] indicate, is that the intelligence community may not observe the law, i.e., there is a constitutional conflict since secrecy and classification are currently being used to classify and conceal extreme crime against humanity and actual torture and assassination of human beings.

The message to the governments is to support democracy and avoid planting foreign agendas against democracy to the European audiences. The concern relates to the younger generation which have been entirely forgotten with the anti-terrorism . There is no excuse for bullying civilians and taxpayers since it seems that the EU has increasingly plans for common taxation. No threat exists on this planet that justifies harming and torturing civilians. No collective rationale would speak for the torture without the consent and permission for the implementation. What has been done to civilians on the watch of governments is unforgivable. It is apparent that the administrations involved, have had a need to identify from a worst-case scenario, even though they could afford to see democracy and citizens as a positive reserve and potential, not as a threat.

The targeted individuals are put through a spectrum of social, medical, legal, financial and professional discrimination in their societies. Since the victims or their relatives do not receive the redress, reparation, and rehabilitation they are entitled to under international law (A/73/207) there are some important measures the UN could take to reduce that ’accountability gap’ and to improve the position of the targeted civilians. Perhaps one of the most important measures is to implement pressure on the local governments by holding them responsible to 1) investigate the reported torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the law enforcement. Currently, the police systematically ignores the reports of these crimes and in an unprofessional manner suggest mental health problems for those reporting their findings to the police. Also, healthcare should be put responsible to 2) guarantee access to healthcare to receive the redress, reparation, and rehabilitation of victims. 3) Compensations on the targeted civilians should be paid to ensure they are able to return to normal life. The first step, however, would be to request the governments to recognise the issue of targeted individuals. The governments should be requested to prepare a statement in view of this matter. These people should be made to once more become socially accepted and full members of the societies. There should be a program available for the rehabilitation of these individuals where consultation and support would be available for each of them. When a government fails to implement basic standards of living for these individuals, they should be submitted a candidate for the Universal Periodic Review protocol (UPR) for the following decade to follow up their progress. The UPR mechanism should be started by each government to reach a common view and statement on the recognition of the issue. The status of each government should be reported annually and compared to the quality of issues and the number of reports received from targeted individuals. Reputational risk should be made obvious to steer some of the governments. Where no progress had been visible the governments could be made legally responsible for the violation of civil rights in the Court of Human Rights globally and the targets should be entitled to compensations. Indeed, a creation of political, legal, financial, and reputational risks to balance the enthusiasm to participate in the aggressive military resonance programs would be advisable.

ATTACHMENT:

(1) TARGETING PEOPLE – ARTICLE36.ORG – Key issues in the regulation of autonomous weapons systems, Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) Geneva, November 2019

(2) ACOUSTIC WEAPONS – ARTICLE36.ORG – Discussion paper for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Geneva, November 2018

(3) DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS – ARTICLE36.ORG – Discussion paper for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Geneva, November 2017

(4) TARGETED USE OF DEW MILITARY TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS (THAT CAUSE FATAL OR SERIOUS INJURIES AS WELL AS SERIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING FOR INHUMANLY EXTENSIVE PERIODS OF TIME) TO CIVILIANS IN FINLAND – OHCHR SUBMISSION 08.2020 – V. Hellberg

(5) INTERNATIONAL TORTURE PROGRAM MANIFESTED UNDER ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS WITHHOLDS LEGAL PROTECTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FROM ITS

TARGETS? – TECHNOLOGY TESTED ON CIVILIANS 09.2020 – V. Hellberg

LINKS:

(6) Barry Trower – Microwave Warfare

(7) Robert Duncan – Neuropsychological and electronic “no-touch torture”. The spectrum of ‘interrogation” and torture techniques used by the US and its allies

(8) The Verge – The EU is considering a ban on AI for mass surveillance and social credit scores

https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/14/22383301/eu-ai-regulation-draft-leak-surveillance-social-credit

(9) Ramola D & Robert Duncan – Report #165: Robert Duncan on the Neurotech Targeting of Humanity, Secrecy, & the Need for Change

(10) Geoengineering – Kevin Shipp – New: CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The Shadow Government

(11) Chris Hedges – CIA’s intelligence coup with William Binney

(12) William Binney – Whistleblower: NSA Goal Is Total Population Control’

(13) Task Force EU Coalition

(14) Tony Blair’s anti-freedom project continues, but ‘War on Terror’ is replaced by ‘War on Covid’

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/516591-tony-blair-war-terror-covid/

(15) Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology by Dr Al Emondi

https://www.darpa.mil/program/next-generation-nonsurgical-neurotechnology

NEWS REPORTS

(16) Pääesikunnan tiedustelupäällikkö: Uusista tiedusteluvaltuuksista ollut konreettista hyötyä rauhanturvaajiin kohdistuvien uhkien torjunnassa

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11917909

(17) Sotilastiedustelun uudet toimivaltuudet vahvistavat Suomen kyberpuolustusta

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11062431

(18) Kommentti: Pääministeri antoi uudelle puolustusvoimain komentajalle ainutlaatuisen julkisen ripityksen – ”sotilasvallankaappaustako” Rinne pelkää?

https://www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000006195198.html

BOOKS & PUBLICATIONS:

(19) R. Duncan, How to Tame a Demon – A Short Practical Guide to Intimized Gang Stalking, Electronic Torture, and Mind Control

(20) Finnish Military Intelligence Review 2021

https://puolustusvoimat.fi/documents/1948673/74055459/PV_sotilastiedustelu_raportti_www_ENG.pdf/2ffb6a29-cabd-b852-7ba0-83892580c632/PV_sotilastiedustelu_raportti_www_ENG.pdf?t=1620281555293

(21) “INFORMAL” SUSPENSION OF NORMAL PROCESSES: THE “WAR ON TERROR” AS AN AUTOIMMUNITY CRISIS by ADENO ADDIS, Boston University Law Review

(22) MIND CONTROL IN THE UK by Tim Rifat BSc BEd. The Truth Campaign Magazine Spring

(23) Commissioner for Human Rights (The Council of Europe): Human rights in Europe should not buckle under mass surveillance

https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/human-rights-in-europe-should-not-buckle-under-mass-surveillance

(24) Effects of electromagnetic fields exposure on the antioxidant defense system: Elfide Gizem Kıvrak,* Kıymet Kübra Yurt, Arife Ahsen Kaplan, Işınsu Alkan, and Gamze Altun – The Journal of Microscopy & Ultrastructure

(25) A Review on Mechanisms for Piezoelectric-Based Energy Harvesters: Hassan Elahi, Marco Eugeni and Paolo Gaudenzi – Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome

LETTERS TO THE GOVERNMENT

(26) V. Hellberg: To The Supreme Court of Finland – Salaisten Pakkokeinojen Säätely Suomessa

VIDEOS:

(27) HardTalk: Tekoäly ja Puolustusvoimat – miten suhtaudutaan?

(28) Dr. James Giordano: Battlescape Brain: Military and Intelligence Use of Neurocognitive Science

ADDITIONAL LINKS

(29) US investigating possible mysterious directed energy attack near White House – CNN Politics on the April 29, 2021

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/29/politics/us-investigating-mysterious-directed-energy-attack-white-house/index.html

(30) ‘Havana syndrome’ likely caused by directed microwaves – US report – BBC News on the 6th of December 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55203844

(31) INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS: The ICRC’s concerns about autonomous weapon systems

https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-position-autonomous-weapon-systems

(32) Association for the Prevention of Torture: New Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering

https://www.apt.ch/en/news_on_prevention/new-principles-effective-interviewing-investigations-and-information-gathering

Försåtlig granskning ska sänka Ranstorps anseende

Ramola D (October 22, 2018): Welcome to the Gulag Created by Crooked Intelligence Agencies, Crooked US Military, and Crooked Fusion Centers

PRESS RELEASES:

(33) ECHR 164 (2021) – 25.05.2021: Insufficient safeguards in bulk signals-intelligence gathering risked arbitrariness and abuse

(34) CNN BUSINESS: Ray Kurzweil: Humans will be hybrids by 2030

https://money.cnn.com/2015/06/03/technology/ray-kurzweil-predictions/index.html

(35) An Implantable Wireless Network of Distributed Microscale Sensors for Neural Applications: Jihun Lee; Ethan Mok; Jiannan Huang; Lingxiao Cui; Ah-Hyoung Lee; Vincent Leung; Patrick Mercier; Steven Shellhammer; Lawrence Larson; Peter Asbeck; Ramesh Rao; Yoon-Kyu – 2019 9th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER)

(36) Control the money, control the media: How government uses funding to keep media in line – Marius Dragomir, Center for Media, Data and Society (CMDS), School of Public Policy, Central European University

CORRESPONDENCE TO THE EU COMMISSION

11.03.2021

The UN Convention against torture was signed by nations, many of them only partially, on 10.12.1984. Since that time the world has changed significantly in terms of torture. What the EU intends to do with common legislation on torture? A very timely matter.

What the EU Commission intends to do by the fact that the EU strategy for homeland security is in conflict with its policies for human rights?

The coercive measures of law enforcement of western countries are based on resonance methodologies such as electronic warfare anti-personnel technologies DEW, AW, RNM, EEG, V2K, etc. The usage of this technology at times politically orientated, or the usage is not adequately justified, and is questionable, strongly mitigating human rights or constitutional rights let alone moral aspects. This is because i) the technology produces a spectrum of pain in the target (and injuries of which some fatal), ii) sleep deprivation in long term preventing full participation to the society, iii) the technology is being directed towards civilians (Genova Convention), iv) the technology is being utilized without the permit or consent of the targeted person (Nurnberg Treaty), v) the operations lean on self-supervision and monitoring to the extent the human rights aspects are not being considered appropriately (no measures on corruption), vi) the technology is being directed to people inhumanly while asleep and vii) towards bystanders (especially children while also asleep disturbing their sleep and causing them pain), viii) the technology is being directed to homes of the targeted citizens (constitutional rights for privacy, domestic peace, etc), ix) the period the technologies are being implemented to targets is matter-of-factly inhuman, reportedly from decade up to 30 years (in which time most of the targets are forced outside of their societies and health, social structure, career, and families have been destroyed), x) the technology may cause fatal injuries that are impossible to trace back to the usage of this technology and xi) torture, which by definition the use of this methodology fulfills, hardly is an argumentable solution. Finally, xii) targets do not possess constitutional rights, nor legal protection from practitioner since it is with the significant likelihood the local or other government. In addition, xiii) law enforcement and healthcare have been instructed to deny the matter. Local regulators, political power, legislators, and courts approving the use are not aware of these aspects due to the fact that the military traditionally has been the only instance with this knowledge. The intelligence community has gained an imbalanced position with this tech and now abuses it in each member country. Also, justice system is becoming addicted to this tech. W Binney quite correctly points out concern about democracy, human rights, constitution, and legal protection of our citizens in the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF_VYNtDgN8&t=441s

15.03.2021

What the EU intends to do in view of human rights in Europe?

Most of the member nations do not have legislation on torture, they rely on the UN convention from 1984. For instance, in the case of Finland, this convention is only partially recognized (article 21 paragraph 1 and 22 paragraph 1).

The security strategy strongly relies on technologies of which use conflicts with human rights and the EU policy for HR. These have a significant impact on 1) democracies, 2) corrosion on constitutional rights and 3) confidence in the future which in turn defines the development of wellbeing in any nation. The security strategy supports electronic warfare (EW) anti-personnel resonance methodologies. These are being proposed as a surveillance tech by the intelligence community and defense forces who do not reveal these technologies have the capacity to cause pain, suffering, and fatalities (Resolution on the Environment, Security and Foreign Policy from January 28, 1999, Nr.A4-005/99) and the capacity is in heavy use and not supervised, controlled properly. The national supervision and control mechanisms are not sufficient. The massive and growing audience of TI (targeted individuals) is a remarkable sign of this issue.


The technology is being supported by the western agenda for anti-terrorism and benefits the defense industry. Why would the EU cast this type of future for itself? There is an interesting phenomenon ongoing in western societies. The intelligence community has been allowed to step up and guide societies. A function that has been purposed to a marginal mechanism within the society now manufactures the consent.

The resonance technology provides the intelligence community and defense function a role during the time of peace that conflicts with the idea of democracy. These instances appear to paint pictures of horror to advance their agenda under national security, threats and crisis constantly to argue stronger participation within the society. A good example of this is the agenda of anti-terrorism that defines the form of society today. We lay an artificial threat to our younger generation. The confidence for the future of the new generation is being tested with the current threats created by geopolitical agendas and the birth rate has sunken significantly in many societies. Why would a society inflict upon itself such a curse?

Does the EU understand that by buying the idea of the threat of terrorism it accepts the idea of the ‘war on terror’ and casts it to Europe? We must remember that terrorism has been defined by the ’west’ and the recent issue may be seen as a result of heavy-handed foreign policy, poor diplomacy of nations from past decades that refer to themselves as the empire. By accepting the idea of the war on terrorism we accept the war is in Europe. As citizens of the EU we are looking for a less gloomy picture for the future and rather would identify from positive models of the future. The human mind operates from the level it identifies. We should do better than this.

21.04.2021

How does the EU intend to do to control surveillance activities in the EU?

There is a lack of consistency in surveillance laws among the EU nations. When a surveillance law of a member nation prevents e.g. use of RNM/RMI (remote neuromonitoring/remote mind imaging) towards its citizen the intelligence community turns to the nation where the use of the technologies is allowed. The intelligence community serves each other thus the rights of a citizen or legal protection does not hold anymore. The ruling is awaited that prevents where forbidden technology in one country is being used from another to target civilians. The EU would benefit from resonance-free zones. Social media: Reading an individual’s social media communication private of nature the intelligence community from Finland may turn to Swedish intelligence who is a member of ’nine eyes’ and has access to XkeyScore.

The US intelligence services have become desirable among the European intelligence community due to the technological advantage but also by US anti-constitutional approach their strategy to enhance the sovereign rights by the cost of civilians. A part of the imperialistic agenda is to create security concerns that overrule any rights of citizens and also underpin the position of intelligence communities in democracy. The US has won the European intelligence community on their side by integrating the individual intelligence services by technology that also defines the strategy for the user. In the anti-terrorism agenda, the US hijacks security and foreign policies by defining who is a terrorist and what is a terroristic act. Since a nation identifies from the frame it is given why provide the EU with a gloomy pic? Mass surveillance laws to consider seriously the aspect from resonance technologies, AI, robotics, neuroscience (https://lbry.tv/@RamolaDReports:8/Invasive-Neurotech-True-Neuroethics—Panel-2:e). Fighter jet fleets use EMP to target citizens without their permit or concent torturing civilians with multifunctional radars and manipulating their biometrics.

In Finland, the constitution was amended to provide intelligence service power and tools to operate. The community is asking for more eg allowing trespassing. An analysis was completed from the perspective of resonance technologies why this should not be allowed. Civilians are targeted by military tech to their homes, bystanders, even babies, and children intentionally produced pain, suffering, and even fatal injuries. The big picture indicates absolutely no reason other than the paranoia and profile rise effort by the intelligence service why such powerful tools should be allowed. No legal protection for targets to rely on, constitutional rights, or human rights not respected. The international rights of the accused are being orbited by presenting the target as a suspect. The targets are manufactured to test the ultimate control over an individual. Trust is gone. Testing periods are inhumane.

25.04.2021

How are the EU law enforcement agencies regulated, monitored? How does the EU inland security strategy recognize the fact that resonance-based mass surveillance systems (RNM, EEG, RMI) are being targeted to civilians? How common is the knowledge that these cause pain, suffering, psychological trauma even fatal injuries in their targets, bystanders, civilians, even babies, and children? Is it known the execution is careless? How are the individuals chosen for these ’torture programs’? What principles are being met to prevent politically-minded targeting? How does the EU recognize the rights of suspects since there are no rights similar to the rights of the accused? How are the periods of targeting regulated? A large number of govt agencies, also from foreign communities, have access to these programs. Torturing is illegal by law in most EU nations and against human rights, constitutional rights. No legal protection for citizens exists against this crime against humanity. Operations are run by the national military agencies thus, can be defined as a war crime. How the EU intends to root out the problem of torture by state agencies and private sector partners foreign intelligence community? A good memory of the operation ’rendition flights’, that had no legal ground, of which distant cousin this operation is. What the EU intends to do to improve the approach of national law enforcement and healthcare systems to the targets of resonance technologies (government-directed mass surveillance protocol that cause pain and psychological trauma) that clearly degrade their rights? How is the legal protection of these citizens improved? Are these people still degraded and treated as mentally ill in front of police or healthcare? What an uncivilized, backward, and inhumane approach. How is the idea of democracy with this implementation?

Having made myself familiar with the SOCTA 2021 report among other reports it seems the Europol does not make a note of such a problem at all albeit the headcount of targeted civilians is piling up. Pretending such a problem does not exist? The global market reports as well as the manufacturers’ technological guides, scientific articles, etc confirm electronic warfare anti-personnel technology is based on military multifunctional radars and signal tech soon to be operated from ICT framework and indeed, operated by the military. An issue of a war crime? Are we really doing this? Pretending that there is no problem and allowing the extrajudicial purge similar to the holocaust ongo at the EU watch? Even though human rights, the constitutional rights are severely and violently attacked there is no word on the phenomenon of targeted civilians? Individuals, someones’ children, are targeted without consequence, perhaps overlapping. Targets do not have rights, no legal protection. Since the technology in question is operated as an extension of political decision-making as a punitive instrument. We will never know who is going to be the next target. No status will bring a shield in the future.

Is that due to fact that it is the law enforcement and intelligence community in the EU who are targeting civilians with military equipment electromagnetic pulses that cause pain, suffering, and fatal injuries as well as psychological trauma? We have a serious concern since the EU’s strategy for homeland security conflicts with the strategy for human rights.

04.05.2021

As Finnish citizens, we experience it difficult to reach information from officials in Finland on our rights and therefore we approach the Commission for this matter.

In 1995 Joseph Biden introduced a bill called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. It previewed the 2001 Patriot Act by 1) allowing secret evidence to be used in prosecutions, 2) expanding the Foreign Intelligence Act and wiretap laws, 3) creating a new federal crime of ’terrorism’ that could be invoked based on political beliefs, permitting the US military to the used in civilian law enforcement, and allowing permanent detection of non-US citizens without judicial review.

The Center for National Security Studies commented the bill would erode ’constitutional and statutory due process protections’ and would ’authorise the Justice Dept to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and associations’.

We share the concerns addressed and would urge to review the rights of the accused and suspects of serious crime or terrorism in Finland. It seems the rights of the accused have been degraded and the legal protection of suspects has been eroded similar to their constitutional rights. Coercive measures such as neurotech applications (RNM/RMI) cause pain, suffering, likely fatalities are being misused and directed to homes of investigated for long periods of time.

Who overviews the methodologies of coercive measures? Who supervises the technology is being used correctly? How is the ethical aspect present when technology is being chosen? There is no adequate control.

To what extent it is permitted in the EU (Finland) to benefit materials in a prosecution that a) has been obtained by coercive measures b) that is classified (the accused has no chance to verify the material nor defend themselves against it)?

To what extent are neurotech applications being used in courts? To what extent the technology steers the decision-making of judges? It seems the accused has the role of the bystander in their trial.

The permission-granting process is not controlled properly. To what extent the evidence to open a secret investigation is being verified and examined by the district court of Helsinki? How political or personal interests of investigation are prevented? Coercive measures are used to manufacture state will. The state interest as an investigator is to make the suspect appear guilty or question their integrity, crecitability, and the suspect does not have the position to defend themselves in the process. To convict a terrorist suspect of a felony of any kind reduces the impact of miscalculation or political ambition by the state. There is evidence of implantable devices injected into the bodies of citizens without their permit producing agony and pain. The current correct practice of investigation is not so much to seek the truth that it is to degrade an individual.

04.05.2021

JUDICAL SYSTEM AND DEMOCRACY IN FINLAND

The rights of the accused are not self-evident today. In practice, the burden of proof is often shifted to the accused. The accused is granted a chance to make himself heard albeit this rule is being broadly violated. A significant moral dilemma exists also in the access of the accused to counsel. Whilst compensated in quality it is allowed at a good rate in the national courts. Whereas trial above the national judicial system, at the time when legal process often becomes the case of state integrity, no assistance is granted anymore. This remarkably reduces the number of processes reaching the ECtHR and limits the possibility of discovery of potential malpractice of the national judicial system.
White collars should follow ethical practices which highlight fairness and equality. The relation of the police and prosecutor seems to put the values to the test(pre-trial). Instead of justice, the national court appears to deliver the ’will of the State in relation to the accused’.

The counter-terrorism laws are used against democracy. Suspects do not have rights nor legal protection against coercive measures. The accused have rights, the rights of the accused. Very few are ever being accused.


Coercive measures are being abused with the assistance of the court and target suspects for an inhumanly long period of time with investigation methodologies that cause pain, suffering, and even fatalities to the targets or family members, even babies. During this time the suspect does not have proper legal protection, even constitutional rights are removed by the execution.

Neuropsychological and remote electronic ’no-touch torture’ applications used under coercive measures compromise heavily human rights and are thought of as WMD by its engineers. Since there is no adequate fair inspection in place suspects are abused during investigations likely for wrong reasons. Counter-measures are being used to manufacture trials directed against the suspect by State or individuals advised to do so. This tactic guarantees further investigation permitted. The accused should never be found guilty on the basis of evidence that has not been brought to light and examined by the accused. The evidence is not presented to the accused to ward coercive measures.

There have been several serious incidents that indicate deep structured corruption of critical infrastructure of Govt institutions under the monitoring of the Parliament. Inadequate supervision has become a significant problem. The role of the political power as the inspector raises many questions of which the least important is not ’whether Finland should have its Constitutional court?’. Although ’professional judges must have a higher university degree in law’ it does not prevent corruption especially since the judicial system is ’independent’. A mature member of society understands, by human nature this is impossible. The judicial system does not seem to convince the citizens anymore.

What mechanisms the EU has to evaluate the level of democracy in member nations? Democracies to be re-evaluated.

20.05.2021

How does the EU regulate, overview or monitor the preparation of counter-terrorism and surveillance laws by member states? How is the consistency of the laws being monitored between the nations? How do civil rights and legal protection survive in these circumstances?

By observation, globally ‘the war on terror’ seems to underpin the sovereign power at the expense of civil rights. We have a constant dilemma on how the ‘act of terror’ is being defined and how it has been communicated to the citizen. Similarly, we do have a problem by definition with what may trigger the need for surveillance over an individual. A matter of interpretation is not good enough? In practice, some crimes or anti-social behavior now turn into an ‘act of terror’ by definition or interpretation? Citizens may not even understand their commitment to an act of terror or being a part of a society of which status is turned to be suspected of terroristic activity by the administration. Grey lines everywhere. It seems politicians have created an extrajudicial tool to ensure sovereign access to ultimate power over the citizen. Why the ultimate control?

How are the surveillance technologies and methods overviewed? How are the periods of surveillance regulated by law and human rights? There has been a vast increase of reports coercive measures are indeed producing pain, suffering, and even fatal injuries. The suspects are receiving rough treatment over prolonged periods of time but never accused.

Although the idea of temporality is not expressed in the derogation provisions of the ICCPR or the European Human Rights Convention, it has been understood to have been implied by the notion of emergency. According to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, article four of the ICCPR requires that measures derogating from the provisions of the Covenant . . . be of an exceptional and temporary nature”” – “Informal” Suspencion of Normal Processes: The “WAR ON TERROR” as an Autoimmunity Crisis by A. ADDIS, Boston University Law Review.

How is this informality being monitored? How is it supervised no coercive measure or interrogation method consist of an element of torture, cause pain or suffering in the targeted? By observation, most of the suspects will never be accused. Is it possible that being a target of coercive measures is a worse option than imprisonment? How are the rights and legal protection of suspects ensured? We have still countries where even the rights of the accused materialize poorly.

Every question addressed here points to a system error. The ultimate cost is borne by the citizen. We have totalitarian states disguised as democracies. It is the culture of execution and power balance, the relationship between the citizen and the administration. We must measure these things to correct them.

26.05.2021

The supervision of the Finnish police relies on internal self-supervision. Recently, there have been a number of court cases questioning the integrity of the entire National Bureau of Investigation. How does the sole internal monitoring compare among the European peer group? By observation of the public reports, news, and personal experience there is a need for a European authority for investigation of police practices to improve and support the moral standards. An external unit, in particular.

The police would not investigate reports of electronic warfare attacks targeting citizens. This has been addressed to the National Police Commissioner Seppo Kolehmainen. No response has been received. Whether this is rather a matter of national security, the activity may continue uninterrupted and the targeted civilians suffer pain, psychological illnesses, even fatalities. On many occasions, the police have reportedly annulled and questioned the mental health of citizens who have requested an investigation on their constant concern. There are reports some individuals have been taken to mental institutions or mental evaluation by force while others proposed to visit their therapist or doctor suggesting an issue with mental health. Kolehmainen has been addressed. No response has been received. Police do not possess the capability to assess the mental health of an individual. What sort of guidance has been given to police in view of this vastly growing issue?How the citizen reporting DEW and resonance attacks should be minded according to police, whether the practice is indeed consistent with this?

The emergency services in Finland are operated by Emergency Response Centres managed by the Ministry of the Interior in cooperation with the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health ie the police and healthcare functions. We would like to understand what sort of guidance there is given to the police and healthcare in terms of individuals who suffer the symptoms of electromagnetic attacks?

The permission granting process for police’s coercive measures by the District Court of Helsinki, in particular, requires monitoring. Since the judges do not know the individuals whose surveillance is on the table the decisions are made on an application basis. How is this process monitored externally? How many times an extension on an existing permission can be granted? How is it controlled the coercive measures are not being used for business, political or personal interests? How is the resilience of individual police officers and the judges, in particular, is being monitored in terms of corruption?

The Finnish police maintain formal and informal databases of citizens, involving profiles of them. This information is not available to the citizen by data access request. Is informal reporting used in cross-governmental communication?

Reports exist the NBI maintains a form of co-operation with the equivalent of Russia. Is this co-operation is indeed approved and formal?

Magnus Olsson, EUCACH Director: UN Starts Investigation to Ban Cyber Torture

Report | Ramola D | March 14, 2020

Magnus Olsson, Director, EUCACH, at the United Nations in Geneva, 28 Feb 2020

Groundbreaking news from Magnus Olsson, Director of EUCACH, the European Coalition Against Covert Harassment who met and spoke with United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur for Torture, Professor Nils Melzer, in Geneva recently, on the occasion of the 43rd Regular Session of the Human Rights Council, on Feb 28, 2020, where Professor Melzer spoke of Psychological Torture and No-Touch Torture, and informed Mr. Olsson the UN Human Rights Council would be further investigating and reporting soon on matters of cybertechnology use to inflict torture, which thousands of “Targeted Individuals” have been insistently reporting as bio-hacking and neuro-hacking crimes, worldwide.

In his UN Report released on 14 February, 2020 (Click on A/HRC/43/49 at this List of Reports) prior to his presentation at the HRC in Geneva, Professor Melzer has for the first time drawn special attention to cybertechnologies and the unsettling phenomenon of governments worldwide investing today in “methods of torture which can achieve purposes of coercion, intimidation, punishment, humiliation or discrimination without causing readily identifiable physical harm or traces.”

Professor Nils Melzer, UN HRC Special Rapporteur for Torture, 28 February, 2020

Professor Melzer has stated in this report that the current resurfacing of unethical Cold War/MK ULTRA-derived interrogational technologies under cover of euphemistic labels such as special interrogation for purposes of “counter-terrorism” and “deterrence”-based detainment” has coincided with “new and emerging technologies (which) give rise to unprecedented tools and environments of non-physical interaction which must be duly considered in the contemporary interpretation of the prohibition of torture.”

This precedent-setting report–which will be further reported at this site and can be read in full here–focuses on aspects of Psychological Torture but makes specific reference to mind-control experimentation and to the need for an expanding treatment of the prohibition of torture and international legal obligations in light of such new technologies as “artificial intelligence, robotics, nano- and neurotechnology, or pharmaceutical and biomedical sciences including so-called “human enhancement.”

Years, indeed decades, of public ignoring of victim testimonials regarding remote access and torture of their bodies and brains with radiation/acoustic neuroweaponry appear to finally be receiving significant international attention, as this report from Nils Melzer reveals.

Many thanks to Magnus Olsson and EUCACH for bringing notice of these high-tech crimes in person in Geneva to Professor Nils Melzer, in his capacity as UN HRC Special Rapporteur for Torture.

Magnus Olsson | EUCACH Press Release | Geneva, 8 March 2020

UN Human Rights Council (HRC) Special Rapporteur on Torture revealed during the 43rd HRC that Cybertechnology is not only used for Internet and 5G. It is also used to target individuals remotely – through intimidation and harassment.

Image: EUCACH

United Nations, Geneva | Image: EUCACH

On the 28th of February in Geneva, Professor Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel Inhuman Degrading Treatment and Punishment, has officially confirmed that cyber torture exists and investigation is now underway on how to tackle it legally.

Electromagnetic radiation, radar, and surveillance technology are used to transfer sounds and thoughts into people’s brain. UN started their investigation after receiving thousands of testimonies from so-called “targeted individuals” (TIs).

Professor Nils Melzer is an expert in international law and since 2016 he holds the Human Rights Chair at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. His team has found evidence that Cybertechnology is used to inflict severe mental and physical sufferings.

“Judges think that physical torture is more serious than cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” he told the Guardian on 21 February. “Torture is simply the deliberate instrumentalization of pain and suffering.” These psychological torture methods are often used “to circumvent the ban on torture because they don’t leave any visible marks”. (1)

Cyber psychological systems like cognitive radio are used to interrupt human perceptions and memory. They can also be used to spy on people violating personal integrity which could lead to corruption and slavery in society. Cyber torture is also called no-touch torture or brain-machine interface.

One way to handle this situation is to regulate new technologies and use AI control mechanisms by independent and impartial investigators. The evidence gathered could then be used to convict criminals easier and quicker in the future.

Professor Meltzer and his team is now underway to create an international legal framework covering cyber technologies that can cause torture which previously was hard to prove. In the future it may be necessary to establish Radio Frequency Spectrum police in order to protect humanity from cyber terrorism. Nils Meltzer also revealed to me personally that the HRC will release several reports on this subject soon in the future.

1. Owen Bowcott, ‘UN warns of rise of ‘cybertorture’ to bypass physical ban’ (The Guardian, March 2020) <https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/feb/21/un-rapporteur-warns-of-rise-of-cybertorture-to-bypass-physical-ban> accessed 6 March 2020

Re-posted by permission of EUCACH and Magnus Olsson

Visit Magnus Olsson’s websites:  NanoBrainImplants.com , Mind Control

Visit EUCACH: EUCACH website

RELATED:

“MK ULTRA on Steroids”: Dr. Robert Duncan Reports On Today’s Neurotech Targeting of Humanity, Secrecy, and The Need For Change

Ex-CIA and MI5 Agent and Whistleblower Carl Clark Reveals Covert Electromagnetic Torture of Civilians by Intel Agencies in US/UK/Europe/Asia with Directed Energy “Non-Lethal” Neuroweapons

Public Disclosure on Neuro Weapons and Neuro Technologies In Use Today

Documentary Evidence of Covert Electronic-Weapon and Neurotechnology Use By US Government on Americans Series (2) The Limited Effects Technology (LET) Program Report | JPSG, OOTW/LE Programs, 1996

Documentary Evidence since 1994 of Covert High-Tech Electronic-Weapon and Neurotechnology Use in Targeted Surveillance, Experimentation, Operations by US Government on Americans: (1) The DOD/DOJ Memorandum of Understanding on OOTW/LE, 1994

5G Live Cellphone Surveillance, Active Denial Burning, & Neurotech Wake Up Call: Dutch State Secretary Reveals 5G Will Be Used for Crowd Control While EU Documents Show Crowd Control Tech Includes Neurotechnologies

2016 BRAIN Initiatives: Neuro Crime, Neuro Warfare, DARPA/CIA Brain Experimentation, Neuro Ethics, and Non-Consensual Experimentees

Mojmir Babacek: Open Letter To The Czech President, Government And Deputies Of The Czech Parliament And Senate | Need for Legislation to Protect the Human Brain and Central Nervous System from Remote Manipulation with Energy Weapons

Neuro Crime (Pre Crime) and Neuro Warfare (Brain Modification) Are Being Studied and C/overtly Tested “ChurchCommittee 2.0” Production: The Neuro Revolution

On International Day in Support of Victims of Torture 26 June 2019: The Continued DEADLY Silence of Journalists on Electronic Warfare used for Torture, Mind Control, and Bio-Hacking and Tracking of Knowingly Innocent Civilians in Western Democratic Countries and Worldwide

Counterintelligence Crime | American Activist Filmmaker Reports Extreme Military/Intel Agency Neural Abuse with Covert Ops Brain-Computer-Interface Weapons

Silicon Valley Entrepreneur Reports Neuro-Hacking, Hive-Minding, Brain-Cloning, Bio-Robotizing: Secret, Illegal, & Profoundly Inhumane US Govt. Neuro-Experimentation, Classic CIA Torture

Worldwide Appeal to Doctors, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Law Enforcement: Extreme Human Rights Violations with High-Tech Remote Human Access Weapons Ongoing MUST Be Stopped

World Notice: Notice of Crimes Against Humanity Using Energy & Neuro/Bio Weapons

Professor David Salinas Flores, MD: Transhumanism: The Big Fraud – Towards Digital Slavery

–Posted 3/25/2019

This is the shortened form of a longer article published by Dr. David Salinas Flores, MD, Professor of Medicine at the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Peru in the International Physical Medicine Rehabilitation Journal, J. 2018; 3 (5):381‒392  and sent to this media site for re-publication. Please consult the longer form of this article there now for all references, which will be provided accurately here shortly as well. Copy-edits and sub-headings have been added for clarity and ease of reading in article format, and are not in the original version.

This article is being published with permission of the author, and much gratitude to him for describing these critical matters of ongoing and impending transhumanizing-by-billionaires and permanently digitally and genetically enslaving the rest of humanity–unless stopped by all of us, acting with conscience and urgency-with such insight and clarity. Dr. Flores has published many articles on related subjects, and hopefully more of them will be republished here soon. This one, The Human Connectome Project: American Fraud which discusses brain nanobots in creation of the “connectome” and this one, The nanomafia: nanotechnology’s global network of organized crime, are closely related to this article.

–Ramola D 

Professor David Salinas Flores, MD: Transhumanism: The Big Fraud – Towards Digital Slavery

Transhumanism is promoted according to the World Transhumanism Association as a philosophy that advocates for the use of technology in order to be able to overcome our biological limitations and to transform the human condition.

Transhumanism is an international movement that states that adding technological implants and inserting DNA will improve the human being. This movement is promoted as a benefit to society, as part of the natural evolution of the human being, or an extension of humanization1, and even as a “revolution”.

Transhumanists Aim to Insert Brain Nanobots and DNA in All Human Beings

Transhumanists state that adding technological implants and inserting DNA in human beings will improve their condition; man would leave biological evolution and begin an evolution based on technology; the post-human species would be born.

The essence of Transhumanism is applying the so-called four emerging technologies that include Nanotechnology (N), Biotechnology (B), Information Technologies (I), and Cognitive Sciences (C) in the human being (NBIC). Transhumanists do not only seek to improve health, to eliminate disabilities or to cure diseases but also to produce stronger, faster, more athletic and more intelligent human beings with technology.

For Transhumanists the time has come for human beings to take control of their own evolution, this evolution based on technology will open the doors to create a new species descending from Homo Sapiens. Human beings will be replaced progressively by “trans-humans” (H +) or “post-humans” ( H + +) who will live 500 years.

Probably the main icon of Transhumanism in the media, is Ray Kurzweil. He was working with the Army Science Board in 2006. Kurzweil has been called “the successor and legitimate heir of Thomas Edison” and was also cited by Forbes magazine as “the supreme thinking machine.”

In 1999, President Bill Clinton at a ceremony in the White House gave him the National Medal of Technology, the United States’ highest honor in technology; (other Transhumanists like) Nick Bostrom has been awarded the Professorial Distinction Award of the University of Oxford, Donna Haraway has been awarded by Yale University with the Wilbur Cross Medal — the school’s highest honor — for an alumnus of this university, and Aubrey de Grey is a Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology Professor.

Transhumanists’ affirmations are public and are made with conviction and confidence; that surprising confidence is the most mysterious aspect of their statements since they even lead in expressing dates close to the launching of their implants in human beings massively.

Transhumanism uses a series of advertising cliches, these being the main ones: “innovation,” “evolution,” “excellence,” and “digital citizen,” and different advertising campaigns in which the most promoted intellectuals and businessmen like Elon Musk, Larry Page, and Nobel Prize winners like Mario Vargas Llosa, who promote human robotisation participate.

In spite of the millionaire promotion and support of mass media to Transhumanists and in spite of statedly considering as “philosophy” the science of love of wisdom, they hide the truth, the most important information: The harmful effects of the technological implants in the human being and the method their almost delirious Transhumanists objectives are being developed with.

Harmful Effects Of Technological Implants In The Human Being: Brain Nanobot Implications Include Loss of Mind Control, Autonomy, Privacy, and Identity

Technological implants like brain nanobots might cause losing mind control and thus, the carriers can be controlled by others and lose their autonomy; they can be spied on permanently with the cerebral Internet and can lose their privacy; their memory can be deleted and they can lose their identity. Thus, the humans who carry technological implants can be permanently spied on, mentally controlled, and lose their identity, becoming human slaves at the service of Transnational companies and the economic powers.

An objective analysis reveals that Transhumanism is only an intellectual swindle that leads to digital fascism, a society where a millionaire elite will govern citizens with technological implants, who will be digital slaves at the service of an oligarchy.

Most amazing is that in spite of the unrealistic and almost delirious affirmations of Transhumanists, their theories are promoted and supported at the highest official level in the world and are promoted daily by the Press, and most remarkable is that they practically have no opposition from scientists or intellectuals, who even spread their unrealistic postulates.

It is striking that Transhumanist postulates have been analyzed from different philosophical, sociological and religious points of view, as symbolized by Wikipedia’s summary on Transhumanism, however there is a surprising lack of questioning about the main high point of Transhumanist thought, and that by common sense, should be the first to interrogate Transhumanists on: the method by which they develop their risky and almost delirious Transhumanist projects and the adverse effects of their technological implants.

In relation to the effect of technological implants on the human being, Transhumanists only promote brain nanobots as a benefit to society, Transhumanists do not inform people that the brain microchips and nanobots can be a weapon against the citizen; they would make us lose our mind control, citizens would be controlled by others and thus would lose their autonomy turning us into human robots; they would lose their privacy due to being permanently spied on with the cerebral Internet; they would lose their identity since their memory can be deleted with brain nanobots. Thus, if the citizens are spied, controlled mentally and do not have identity, they would become human slaves at the service of transnational companies and economic powers.

Transhumanists Themselves Baulk at Using the Dangerous Brain Implants They Promote

Probably the best proof of the Transhumanist scam is that none of the Transhumanists use the dangerous brain implants and the technological innovations that they promote. In the massive public lectures they perform, they do not perform the “mind uploading” with the Brain Net, which allows a person’s entire private life to be made public.

Kevin Warmick, a promoter of the cyborgs, says: “I have one goal in my life. I want to be a cyborg …I want to be the world’s first half man half machine.

However, he does not use brain implants either, he says: “I really like my life and there are many possibilities that something goes wrong, both when implanting the chip and when removing it.

Regarding the method they are developing their Transhumanist projects with, almost like science fiction, such as fusing the human brain with that of a machine, this is a mystery.

Criminal Methods, Organized Crime Networks, Deceptive Propaganda Used by Transnational Technology Companies to Conduct Transhumanist Nanobot and Implant Experiments

In recent scientific books, the following is expressed:

Nowadays, human beings using the Intel brain chip voluntarily seem unlikely…it could probably have applications for people like the quadriplegics.

For that reason, for a person to be part of the almost amazing Transhumanist experiments like that of brain fusion so promoted by them, recent research provides evidence that transnational technology companies would be resorting to criminal methods: violence, swindle, extortion or organized crime.

Probably the main swindle is the overestimation of Artificial Intelligence without scientific support, this includes the millionaire promotion of “Singularity,” a term very promoted by Transhumanism; this is defined as the moment when the machines acquire an intelligence superior to the human one and can even govern us. This points to be only an intellectual campaign to intimidate the population and induce it to use the brain implants, as also the recent campaign of “the threat of robots” being “very intelligent” or “super dangerous,” “they will leave us without jobs” or “they will exterminate us.”

The solution for “the threat of robots” is “the technological innovation,” the use of invasive neurotechnology; thus, multimillionaires like Elon Musk promote this solution to “the threat” of the Artificial intelligence as follows:

“Humans will turn into cyborgs or will be irrelevant.”

“Humans shall turn into cyborgs to survive.”

Obviously, these affirmations have no scientific support.

Dangerous Experiments Under Cover of Technological Innovation Likely in Poor Countries like Latin America

It is clear that Transhumanist experimentation with this new technology in humans is high risk; the big transnationals like Google, the main Transhumanist promoter have publicly expressed their refusal to carry out biomedical projects in countries like the United States. Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google has mentioned in a newspaper: “Generally, health is just so heavily regulated, it’s just a painful business to be in. It’s not necessarily how I want to spend my time. Even though we have some health projects, we’ll be doing it to a certain extent. But I think the regulatory burden in the U.S. is so high, I think it would dissuade a lot of entrepreneurs.”

The newspaper reinforces Google CEO expressions: “The sentiment – disruptive innovation is hampered by sluggish regulations- isn’t new.

Due to the high regulation that protects its citizens in rich countries, these dangerous experiments are probably carried out in poor countries such as those in Latin America.

The transnational technology companies like Google transmit a message in their lectures that reveals an uncontrolled and dehumanized ambition towards technological innovation development in Latin America, probably due to the great economic power and the poor controls that they have.

In the recent meeting of transnational technology companies in Latin America, the following messages are taught as basic lessons for innovators:

“If necessary, cannibalize.”

“Kill something that works to create something that may or may not work.”

The almost amazing Transhumanist experiments like fusing the brain of a human to that of a machine, using bionic eyes, making changes in DNA, using implants in one’s own skeleton, all dangerous experiments that harm or put in danger the health of the experimentation subject, would be developing in Latin Americans at the expense of their health, honor, privacy and in some cases their lives.

Nanomafias: Global Organized Crime Network to Illicitly Develop Transhumanist Projects Using Nanotechnology; Well-Known Billionaires Investing in Neurotech in Latin America Involved

This suspicion is reinforced by recent researches alert to the existence of a global organized crime network to develop illicitly Transhumanist projects using nanotechnology in order to create human weapons, known as “nanomafias,” mainly in Latin America.

For that purpose, citizens would be intoxicated with drinks and foods contaminated with Brain Nanobots or even would be kidnapped to install brain implants in them like the cortical modem or artificial hippocampus without their consent, using hospital surgeries mainly neurosurgery, and the victims who have suffered brain mapping whereby a robot has been constructed with their own brain algorithms would be beheaded to fuse their heads with those of robots created from their brain mapping.

This (already existing) Mafia of transnational technology companies and corrupt governments involves administrators of hospitals, corrupt health unions, rectors, professors, librarians and university students, mafias of Police, prosecutor’s offices, judges, Intelligence services, and especially Press media and its extensive network of journalists who develop an insolent campaign to promote the use of technological implants.

In a general view, the evidence points to the fact that the Transhumanist experimentation network is an interconnected global network, surprisingly organized by the billionaires of the world most promoted by the world Press, such as Carlos Slim, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. Bill Gates, through his foundation, funds projects of neurologists at the Sabogal Hospital in Peru that really develops neuroscientific projects that are camouflage for Transhumanist projects of mental control and cerebral Internet; Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon Books finances a neuroscience institute in Princeton University, a university with close links in Latin America; Mark Zuckerberg, Carlos Slim, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and George Soros are suspected of organizing the cerebral Internet in Latin America.

Global Vision of Transhumanism Reveals a Great Swindle: “Supermen/Bionic Men” will Really Be Mandatorily Nanobotized Digitized Human Slaves of Tech Billionaires

Really, a global vision of Transhumanism reveals only a great swindle; Transhumanism does not seek to improve the individual as its promoters affirm but on the contrary, to turn the human being with technological implants into a slave at the service of Transnational companies and the economic powers.

Transhumanists affirm that the human beings who use the technological implants and genetic engineering will be superior men and those who do not use them will be inferior men, according to Transhumanist symbology, the h + and the h-.

For this reason, following their promotion, the rich with their great economic power will be able to buy technological implants and will be more superior and the poor without implants will be more inferior, thus, the social gaps will enlarge between the poor and the rich “the digital gap,” for that reason, the poor shall fight to also get “that advantage” and seek to get those technological implants. However, the truth is totally opposite.

The global Transhumanist mega-project created by the elite that secretly rules the world, grouped in different groups like the Masons, the Council for Foreign relations or the Bilderberg Club, would seek to create a world society with two groups:

An elite of millionaires who will not use brain microchips and nanobots, and who will have access to the video stations to control mentally, spy and enslave the rest of the citizens.

The rest of the society, the promoted “supermen,” “bionic men,” and the “h +,” will be human robots who will mandatorily use nanobots and cerebral microchips, devices that will be promoted as a compulsory requirement to get a job 9 in a very near future; really the h + will be the new slaves. In synthesis, reality is that h + will be the lower ones and the h – will be the superiors. The new slavery will be human robotisation promoted by Transhumanism, and the brain nanobots and chips will be the new chains and shackles.

In simple terms:

Transhumanism only seeks to achieve human slaves for the millionaires who rule the world.

Conclusions

The fact of hiding the adverse effects of technological implants by Transhumanists, the non-use by Transhumanists of the brain implants that they promote, the billionaire promotion and financing of Transhumanism by the economic powers and transnationals of technology and the illicit human experimentation that is suspected to be the real secret method of these Transhumanist projects reveals that Transhumanism is a swindle, in order to lead us towards Digital Slavery and towards a fascist society where an elite will enslave digitally the rest of the citizens with technological implants.

REFERENCE:

Salinas D. Transhumanism: the big fraud-towards digital slavery. Int Phys Med Rehab J. 2018; 3 (5):381‒392 

NSA Whistleblower Karen Melton Stewart: “Murder-For-Profit” Club

–Posted 11/14/2018

PDF Format of this Post which can be used as a flyer here: Murder-for-Profit Club

Murder-For-Profit” Club, Karen Melton Stewart, NSA Intelligence Analyst, ret.

MURDER-FOR-PROFIT” CLUB

Did you know that some of your neighbors have been recruited into a secret “Murder-for-profit” Club?

To justify their existence, Homeland Security/Fusion Centers in each state recruit low-life civilians into a secret, unconstitutional army of vigilantes that harass, harm, and murder for money.

These innocent, unsuspecting victims are loaded onto the fraud Terrorist Watch List to bloat the numbers of threats to the community, in order to increase Fusion Center funding. Slander is used to hate/fear monger.

Fusion Centers pay civilian thugs to identify vulnerable people, older, alone, or people with assets someone else wants, or who wealthy, powerful, or influential people find “inconvenient” and want neutralized or “snuffed out”.

Map of Fusion Centers, 2014/Daily Sheeple

A main Fusion Center takes the contract hit, constructs a (“parallel construction”) dossier or list of non-existent, fabricated crimes on the person, then sends it out to the appropriate Fusion Centers as the fraudulent basis for illegal persecution and criminal harassment and torture of that person until he/she is dead. (Older women targets are preferred since they are more vulnerable and helpless to these bullies and human predators.)

Tax money from the fraud Department of Homeland Security is funneled through the Lockheed Martin corporation in the form of gift cards, services, products, paid vacations, home renovations, etc. depending on the level of harassment conducted by the neighborhood mercenary thug traitors involved. These thugs are lied to that their (war) crimes are sanctioned and they cannot be arrested and prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

President Trump has expanded the authority of the Military Police to arrest crooked Federal employees, Fusion Center and law enforcement employees, and their civilian thug Infragard armies as traitors under military law. Limited martial law will be invoked to arrest them and seize their assets. Then they will be tried and most executed under military law.

****

RELATED

NSA Whistleblower, Karen Stewart: Synopsis of the Silent Holocaust Taking Place in the United States

Deep State Treason: NSA Whistleblower Karen Stewart Reveals Massive Surveillance Abuse of Innocent Americans, Civilians Worldwide Beyond FISA Memo: #BIGGERthanReleaseTheMemo

Former US Navy Officer Walks Across America to Expose Covert Targeting and Neuro-Experimentation Program

Robert Duncan, Regarding 6/10 NYT Article on Gang-Stalking & Targeted Individuals: “When Weapons Are Field Tested, They Need To Be Very Secretive”

TSA Forcibly Detain, Abuse Christian Pastor From India Coming to Meet President Trump Re. Persecution of American Christians with EMF/Sonic Neural Weapons, Hastily Deport Him

NSA Whistleblower Karen Stewart Writes Openly to FBI Infragard, “America’s Unconstitutional Fascist Brown Shirts”

Welcome to the Gulag Created by Crooked Intelligence Agencies, Crooked US Military, and Crooked Fusion Centers

Dr. Eric Karlstrom: Four Estimates of the Size, Scope, Structure, Costs, and Personnel Requirements of ¨GOG´S NeW GESTAPO* (¨Global Organized Stalking Neuro-Warfare Groups´ Electronic Slavery, Torture, and PsyOp Operations¨)

Memorandum to President Donald J. Trump on Domestic US Torture Programs Running Under Cover of Surveillance

Open Season on Targets: Blacklisted Individuals, Extreme Abuse in Targeting, Secretive Lab-Rat Exploitation, & Massive Establishment Cover-Up

Ramola D: Surveillance Targeting Has Permitted Clear-Cut TORTURE

Groundbreaking Bill Proposal Prohibiting Organized Covert Torture Effected With Electronic Weapons & Organized Stalking Under Review By State Legislators In California; Support Needed

Letter to SACHRP/Regarding SACHRP’s Responsibility to Protect All Human Subjects;Necessary Protections of the Common Rule

No Waivers of Informed Consent, PERIOD: The Public Reports Ongoing Non-Consensual Experimentation and Demands the Common Rule Protect Citizens, Not Covert Activities

Omnisense/www.sense.gallery Speaks Out: “Electronic Telepathy Cybernetic Secret Society Oversees the Targeting of Individuals”

Citizens Against Harmful Technologies Reports Extremely Abusive WBAN use on TIs by Surveillance State: Covert DOD/DOJ Program of Torture & Control, Headed for All, Related to Internet of Things

Dr. Millicent Black Reports Obstruction of Justice by Law Enforcement: “Sleep Deprivation is Torture”

Washington’s Blog: The American Public Informs President Obama’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues About Ongoing Non-Consensual Human Experimentation in the USA Today

Ramola D/Washington’s Blog: NSA Whistleblower Karen Stewart Speaks Candidly About Illegal and Criminal NSA & FBI Programs of Organized Stalking and Electronic Harassment in the USA &  Abroad

9/11/2018: Expose the Treason, Challenge & End Domestic US Fusion Center & Military Terrorism Masquerading as Surveillance

Geral Sosbee: Collapse of Constitutional Government of The United States of America & The Responsibility For The Collapse (FBI/CIA/DOD); Call for New Nuremberg Trial

NSA Whistleblower Karen Melton-Stewart: Open Letter to Media, NYT on Schizophrenic Coverage of Microwave Weapon Use on US Diplomats in Cuba versus US Targeted Individuals

Ramola D Reports/Report #72: Part 6/Barbara Hartwell, CIA Whistleblower: Corruption, Criminality, & Cover-Ups in the FBI & CIA

Community Notice: Notice of Crimes Against Humanity/Patriot Act Crimes

Notice of Crimes Against Humanity Using Energy Neuro/Bio Weapons

How Secret Policing With Deadly “Non-Lethal” EMF/Scalar/Sonic Neuroweaponry Has Been Installed Domestically Inside the US, & Globally

The Neutralizing of US Dissent With Neuroweaponry: Open Letter to Journalists and Human Rights Advocates and Organizations in the USA and Worldwide

Ramola D Reports/Report #56: Geral Sosbee, FBI Whistleblower Reports Massive Crime By FBI

Geral Sosbee, FBI Whistleblower: FBI & FMJ Are On a Roll of Domestic Criminality

NSA Whistleblower Karen Melton-Stewart & JIT: Attn. Law Enforcement/Police & Sheriff’s Deputies: Are You Oath Keepers or Oath Breakers?

NSA Whistleblower Karen Stewart’s Petition for All Targeted Americans: Federal Government, Take Me Off Your Fraud Enemies List Now

NSA Whistleblower Karen Stewart says Intel Community Now Full of People More Dangerous to Freedom than ISIS

NSA Whistleblower Karen Stewart: To the Authorities of Every Level of Government: Re-Declaration of Rights July 4, 2018

Flyers for Public Education

 

Image Credit: Leo Reynolds/Warrantless.org

No Waivers of Informed Consent, PERIOD: The Public Reports Ongoing Non-Consensual Experimentation and Demands the Common Rule Protect Citizens, Not Covert Activities

Heightened Public Concern About Proposed Exclusions of Intelligence Surveillance/Criminal Justice/National Security-Related Activities from the Protections of the Common Rule

by Ramola D/The Everyday Concerned Citizen/Posted July 17, 2016

(With information, analyses, and reviews from Norman Rabin, Karla Smith, Cait Ryan, Nola Alexander, and others. Links and resources include those supplied in public comments by Margaret Zawodniak, Todd Giffen, Steven White, Jeffrey Kaye Ph.D.)

Informed Consent from human subjects was a primary subject of concern presented by activists at the recent May 18-19 meeting in Washington, DC, of SACHRP, the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection, and in several public comments submitted by human rights advocates and others online.

Those comments emphasized that Informed Consent needs to be made absolutely essential, and neither exempted nor excluded as currently proposed, in all Intelligence Surveillance, Criminal Justice, and National Security-related activities/research, particularly classified research.

Please note: Although a notice was recently released, on June 29, 2016, of a new report published by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, Medicine recommending that the September, 2015 NPRM should be withdrawn–

Congress Should Create Commission to Examine the Protection of Human Participants in Research; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Revise Common Rule Should Be Withdrawn

–the purpose of this article, and all Public Comment Summaries it links to, is to publicize and historically document for a larger public audience the expressed concerns, from the American public, about in-built waivers of Informed Consent being permitted via proposed exclusions (particularly for Military/Intelligence/National Security/Criminal Justice activities/research), in this current NPRM for the Common Rule.

It is also to be hoped that this extended public exposure will inspire serious consideration of these concerns and directly influence any final changes to the Common Rule, as part of the Rulemaking process described at SACHRP, on May 18, 2016 by Jerry Menikoff, Director, OHRP, and Executive Secretary, SACHRP:

“it is inappropriate for a change to suddenly come across that was not part of that discussion – a change to Final Rule should be a logical outgrowth of what was originally presented or something that was appropriately discussed as part of the Public Comment process – that is an appropriate restraint in terms of what the Government can [do] – so nothing new can be added that wasn’t discussed.” Jerry Menikoff, MD, JD, Director OHRP, Executive Secretary, SACHRP

SACHRP May 18-19 Meeting on NPRM for the Common Rule/Focus

sachrp2

SACHRP Meeting, May 18, 2016

Following a period of public comment that closed Jan 6, 2016, this particular meeting of the 11-member strong SACHRP was partially focused on sharing analyses of public comments on the proposed changes to the Common Rule, reflected in the NPRM or Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) posted September 2015. NIH video coverage of these meetings may be found here: May 18 and May 19.

The Common Rule, which comprises Subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 45, Section 46, establishing the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, is a modified version of the Belmont Report, formulated in 1979, by a National Commission set up to address human subject research protections, and only a distant cousin of the Nuremberg Code of 1947, or the World Medical Association’s Helsinki Declaration (since revised) of 1964, designed to protect all human subjects of medical research, and in particular hold sacrosanct the need to ensure their Informed Consent.

The US Government, with the leadership of SACHRP and OHRP, Office of Human Research Protections at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is currently considering making changes to the Common Rule.

Present at the May 18 meeting, as self-introduced, were:

Nancy King from Wake Forest School of Medicine; 

Reid Pierce from the University of Pennsylvania, Medical Geneticist; 

Dan Nelson from the EPA; 

Christina Heide. Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights, HIPAA; 

Karen James, Department of Veterans Affairs; 

Stephanie Bruce, Department of Defense; 

Kevin Praska, FDA; 

Ann Andrews for Department of Commerce and NIST; 

Jonathan Green, Executive Chair, Washington University in St. Louis; 

Holly Fernandez, Harvard Law School; 

Owen Garrick, Clinical Research, Retiring SACHRP member; 

Stephen Rosenfeld, Board Chair, IRB; 

Diana Chinko, Three-Time Survivor Of Early Onset Breast Cancer, 
Patient Advocate involved with Researchers/Funders 
Nationally, and Los Angeles; 

Cecelia Chirinos, OHRP; 

Julia Gorey, OHRP (Executive Director, SACHRP); 

Jerry Menikoff, OHRP (Executive Secretary, SACHRP); 

and Jeffrey Botkin, University of Utah (Chair, SACHRP).

Adding particular poignancy to these discussions, also present at the meeting and offering public comment on both days were activists aiming to represent current-day non-consensual subjects of covert human experimentation today in the United States, who spoke strongly and emotionally against the advisability of compromising Informed Consent requirements for any category of research involving humans, including classified research. (Covered further below.)

Executive Summary Presented at SACHRP Meeting Avoids Addressing Public Concern About Intelligence Surveillance/Criminal Justice Exclusions

It is notable that the presentation of an Executive Summary of Public Comments by Lauren Hartsmith, JD, from the Division of Policy and Assurances at OHRP, failed to present public concern about exclusions for Intelligence Surveillance and Criminal Justice activities noted in written public comments.

Non-consensual experimentation activist Joan Dawson, stood up to question this exclusion (of discussion on proposed Intelligence exclusions in the NPRM) and was informed the decision was based “purely on numbers”.

Joanqfin

Joan Dawson asks about criteria for exclusion of comments on Intelligence activities from SACHRPS’s Public Comment Summary

Ms. Hartsmith noted that high numbers of comments had been registered for other aspects of the NPRM while only close to 50 public comments had mentioned the Intelligence Surveillance exclusion, and 25 comments addressed the Criminal Justice exclusion.

Although OHRP Director Dr. Jerry Menikoff followed up to note that low numbers did not preclude discussion and consideration by the Committee of important issues in comments (while larger numbers on other aspects might indicate greater public concern on those aspects or institutional concern about regulatory burden and “decrease (in) their profits” regarding those aspects), these were non-specific remarks, not specifically referencing the comments on Intelligence Surveillance exclusions.

In terms of how the comments are used, it is not just about numbers—this is a governmental process, the genuine goal of all the players is to produce good policy outcomes.

…Bottom line, numbers are not necessarily the key thing, which is not to say that numbers do not matter.Dr. Jerry Menikoff, Director, OHRP, Executive Secretary, SACHRP

A preliminary analysis performed by activists for victims of non-consensual experimentation (possibly conducted by classified research) offers further detail:

We found 85 Public Comments which mentioned Intelligence” (both victims and non-victims);

a subset of 57 were found that specifically mentioned Intelligence Surveillance” (both victims and non-victims).

15 non-victims addressed Intelligence Surveillance (7 detailed objections; 8 briefly mentioned the exclusion)

26 victims addressed Intelligence Surveillance (Note: an additional 2 possible victims, 1 probable victim and 2 victim’s spouses also submitted comments addressing Intelligence Surveillance)

62-66 victims submitted comments to the NPRM (there were a total of 86 victim comments including multiple comments by the same person).

In Summary there were approximately 62-66 victims who commented during the NPRM, and 77-81 victims who commented during the ANPRM and NPRM combined.Karla Smith and Norman Rabin, Authors, Victim Stakeholder Summary (described below)

(The ANPRM was the Advance Notice of the Proposed Rule Making, and was published in September 2011, followed by the Notice or NPRM in September 2015.)

Researcher and activist Karla Smith also offers a reminder that, post extensive public comment in 2011 at the President’s Bioethics Commission, the Commission publicly refused to hear any further testimony from people claiming non-consensual experimentation on their bodies, via a letter from Valerie Bonham, Executive Director of the Commission, a factor which affected the numbers of public comments on the NPRM:

“We had many fewer comments (for NPRM) than we did the Bioethics Commission because victims have given up. They are not getting a response. And they are not welcome at the Bioethics Commission.” Karla Smith, Public Comment at SACHRP, May 19, 2016

valerieBonham

Valerie Bonham’s 2011 Letter Stating President Obama’s Bioethics Commission Declines Concern About Covert Non-Consensual Experimentation/Surveillance

Regardless of the numbers involved, close analysis of these particular public comments—comprising the bulk of this article–show that these proposed exclusions to the Common Rule strike at the very heart of meaningful, humane protections for human subjects, and seek to leave all Americans—and others, worldwide–completely vulnerable to exploitation by the “covered entities” of American military and intelligence agencies, in the name of national security, standard intelligence surveillance, and normative criminal investigation.

Given this country’s history of exploitative and abusive medical experimentation inclusive of the CIA’s MKULTRA abuses, the Guatemala STD experiments, and extreme CIA torture at Guantanamo, all “under cover” as above, this is an issue of vital importance today for all Americans, and citizens worldwide to get informed about.

New NPRM Exclusions Would Further Weaken Protections for Informed Consent in Classified Research

While the intent of the proposed Common Rule, as presented in the NPRM, is ostensibly to protect human subjects from exploitation and abuse while enrolled in research, among the concerning changes proposed is a listing of certain research-like activities as non-research (and therefore exempt from protection by the Common Rule), including (in a list among surveys and questionnaires, oral histories, journalism) Intelligence Surveillance activities, Criminal Justice activities, and National Security-related activities.

exex

NPRM/Excerpt

As several public commenters note, these changes would not strengthen but explicitly roll back extant implied protections for human subjects in projects covertly or otherwise run by Intelligence, Justice, or Military agencies and contractors in the above categories. A range of institutions focused on defense, national security, homeland security, and criminal justice would stand to benefit from these broad exclusions of unspecified “activities” as not-research, as noted in NPRM language.

Public commenters note that essentially, it appears the NPRM seeks to re-classify research on human subjects being conducted or intended by such Military or Intelligence institutions as routine operation, and not-research.

This is highly concerning because it offers the possibility of shielding research as “activity” and becoming exempt from the Common Rule; researchers will no longer need to concern themselves with matters of Informed Consent, respect for subjects, or letting them opt out—matters already unaddressed in current classified research, as claimed by those stating they are current-day victims of covert government programs.

IntSurv-NPRM

NPRM/Excerpt

In the USA, basic requirements for Informed Consent, which once was an essential prerequisite to all medical research post-Nuremberg and post-revelations of inhumane Nazi experiments, have been watered down successively since, to the point where OHRP discussions now reframe the subject in terms of “regulatory burden.”

Opening remarks by Dr. Jerry Menikoff, Director of OHRP at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Executive Secretary, SACHRP, suggested that OHRP was not the only party behind the creation and wording of the NPRM, that policy decisions taken at a higher level also came into play (covered below).

Are Military/Intelligence Agencies Backseat-Driving the NPRM, SACHRP, & the Presidential Bioethics Commission?

Is there an intention behind proposed changes to the Common Rule to explicitly protect ongoing covert activities and research by Military and Intelligence groups—and indeed the precise non-consensual neuro-experimentation and Directed Energy Weapons field-testing that activists are presenting testimony about?

Several factors point to this disturbing possibility, and are considered below.

1. Late Inclusion of the Intelligence Surveillance Activities Exclusion in the NPRM

Noted in public comments are several peculiarities associated with the NPRM proposal to exclude Intelligence Surveillance activities from the protections of the Common Rule. One has to do with the sudden appearance of this proposal in the NPRM in September 2015.

Karla Smith notes, in her joint public comment with activist and researcher Norman Rabin, presented live at the May 19 meeting:

The September 2011 ANPRM did not discuss or propose an Intelligence Surveillance Activities exclusion, however there were approximately 18-20 public comments to the ANPRM which expressed concerns plausibly related to non-consensual hi-tech and/or military or intelligence or classified human research/experimentation.

…The ANPRM was followed by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in September 2015. Though no comments to the ANPRM were found proposing or discussing an Intelligence Surveillance Activities exclusion, the NPRM contained a proposal to exclude unspecified Intelligence Surveillance Activities (NPRM at § __.101(b)(1)(vi)). These activities include defense or national security-related activities.” Karla Smith, Public Comment at SACHRP, May 19, 2016

(Also, please see Question 1 of 4, in Norman Rabin’s public comment below, questioning the late addition of the Intelligence Surveillance exclusion, without any prior public discussion.)

Why were Intelligence Surveillance activities—not mentioned in the earlier Advance Notice–suddenly proposed, 4 years later, for explicit Common Rule exclusion from human subject protections?

Could it be that increasing visibility of covert, non-consensual human experimentation programs through increasingly credible–and cumulative–victim testimonials online these days have caused agencies pursuing secrecy to seek new, unbreachable means of cover?

2. “Various Federal Agencies Responsible for NPRM/Changing the Common Rule”

Public commenters have noted that the language of the NPRM seems too quick to excuse the closed, covered, classified actions of Intelligence Surveillance and Criminal Justice as legitimate, routine, authorized activity, and not research. (Public comments covered further below.)

nprm4a

NPRM/Excerpt

Joint Federal Creation of NPRM Language: At the SACHRP May 18 Meeting, OHRP remarks implied there was joint strategizing and management of the proposed Common Rule document by various un-named Federal agencies.

Jerry Menikoff, Director, OHRP, noted that “many Federal players were involved in creating this document,” and statements of rule or policy in the document reflected “decisions already made at higher levels regarding what a particular policy decision would or would not be.”

Was this a veiled reference to Military/Intelligence Agency oversight of policies and process?

I do want to say, often, at least some people act as if OHRP ran the show, and it’s OHRP’s decision on all of these points. In fact it’s been a complicated document, many players within the federal government have been involved. Decisions were made by various people who have various authorities and make these decisions and it has not been that OHRP gets its call on all of this. And I mean that is just the nature of the beast.” Jerry Menikoff, Director, OHRP; Executive Secretary, SACHRP

nprm4b

NPRM/Excerpt

Listed on the HHS website and included in the NPRM is a list of Federal agencies associated with the Common Rule, who may have helped in creation of the wording in this document, including the Departments of Labor, Justice, Defense, Agriculture, Energy, Education, Commerce, Homeland Security, US AID, EPA, SSA, and NASA, among others. Raising the question: Do all of these Federal departments actually engage in human subject research? Apparently they all have an interest.

Joint Federal Analysis of Public Comment: While presenting the analysis of public comment, Lauren Hartsmith also mentioned that OHRP “took the lead in analysis, but they also had input from other Federal players as well.”

It is telling therefore that analysis of comments on the Intelligence Surveillance and Criminal Justice exclusions was excluded from the day’s presentation.

Was the Military/Intelligence/Justice intent here perhaps to maintain a distant silence on these vitally important matters of national interest, just to not draw attention to the important and insistent issues of Informed Consent and ongoing covert human experimentation being raised by public comment on these exclusions?

Mention of Confidential Government Discussions: In addressing issues of procedure past this meeting in finalizing changes to the Common Rule, Jerry Menikoff mentioned confidential Government discussions before Congressional procedures could follow to turn proposals into Federal Regulation and law. There was mention of the Rule being finalized and submitted in September 2016 before the next SACHRP meeting in October.

Sample Comment, SACHRP Summary of Public Comments/May 18, 2016

dates1This was public, in the Unified Agenda with a September 2016 date. It’s been in the Unified Agenda many times before, dates have been changed, but there’s a desire to move this thing forward.”

The final Rule will be a document in many ways similar to the NPRM in that it will point out, discuss the public comments, and it will respond to the public comments. Sort of probably a fine art in which different lawyers will I guess agree in terms of to what level of detail you go into in terms of responding to the public comments, but yes, that is a requirement and it will be done when a final rule, if and when a final rule is announced.

In terms of…the legislative end of things, I mean, the Legislature is open for Congress to do what it wants to do.

…In terms of my involvement, you know, involvement of the Executive branch with the Legislative branch is a complicated thing and my understanding is, there are actually to some degree confidentiality issues about what I should not or should be talking about, it’s not like there are a lot of interactions but it’s certainly open for Congress to do what Congress may or may not want to do in terms of getting involved in this topic and if they want to pass laws, it’s no different than any other area.

There are restraints in terms of there is a Department of Health and Human Services policy that we’re not supposed to be talking about the deliberations in terms of once public comment is done what the government is thinking about in terms of what the final rule might be. We’re just not allowed to talk about that.” Jerry Menikoff, Director, OHRP; Executive Secretary, SACHRP

3. Information on Acknowledged, Ongoing CIA Research Not Provided to the President’s Bioethics Commission Either

Relevant to this discussion on the NPRM, it is interesting to note that the CIA has offered two late acknowledgments to the President’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI), one that yes, they are conducting research domestically within the United States, and two, that no, they are not providing further detail on this research because the information is “confidential,” although not classified.

Confidential” information, by CIA standards, from various sources online, appears to be related to levels of CIA Security clearance, implying information that poses “risks” to national security if divulged, but not “grave damage” as “Secret” information, nor “exceptional threat” as “Top-Secret” information.

The public comment presented by Karla Smith (posted separately here) makes note of a letter dated November 15, 2011, sent by Associate Deputy Director, CIA, V. Sue Bromley to Amy Gutmann, Chair, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI), footnoted in the updated 2012 version of their 2011 report MORAL SCIENCE/Protecting Participants in Human Subjects Research, pointing to the domestic nature of CIA research:

The CIA confirmed that all CIA-sponsored human subjects research is conducted in the United States – not abroad…’End note 10 on page 172 of the updated June 2012 version of Moral Science.

MS1

Moral Science/Excerpt, Page 160

The CIA did not report project-level data (on human subjects) to the Commission in 2011 when requested, a fact noted in Moral Science as N/R or Not Reported in tables from the Research Project Database (RPD), and acknowledged with this comment:

The Human Subjects Research Landscape Project does not provide a robust understanding of research that was not reported because it is classified or because of national security concerns.” Moral Science, Page 170

The full end-note 10, linked to the above statement (emphases below mine) may be of interest, particularly to those Americans alleging non-consensual experimentation on their bodies, plausibly in covert, classified-research projects.

For example, the CIA did not submit project-level data to the RPD because “the application by the C.I.A. of certain research results may implicate intelligence sources and methods, and thus cannot be discussed in the public domain.” Letter from V. Sue Bromley, Associate Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Agency to Amy Gutmann, Ph.D., Chair, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (November 15, 2011). The CIA confirmed that all CIA-sponsored human subjects research is conducted in the United States – not abroad. CIA personnel also met with Commission staff to discuss the CIA’s human subjects research portfolio and made records available to appropriately cleared Commission staff. In addition, the Department of Energy provided de-identified data about three human terrain mapping projects that have not been accounted for in the RPD.”

It is worthwhile to reiterate here that the CIA is confessing to conducting research inside the USA, on human subjects, meaning, Americans—which is more than is publicly divulged by the CIA, on FOIA requests, as this writer can attest:

FOIA Request Report: CIA Unable to Confirm Informed Consent in Any Open Human Subject Programs and Research Using Directed-Energy Neuroweapons in the USA

And that the CIA, while apparently sharing some information with Commission staff, refuses to publicly offer details of this human subjects research, although they say it is not classified, but “confidential,” and notably, that “research results” involving this human subjects research being conducted secretly within the United States may implicate “intelligence sources and methods,” which makes it necessary to keep secret.

This information in itself would be worth exploring further, particularly since alleged experimentation being reported today attests to no less than precisely that human brains—people’s own private storehouses of intelligence—are being invaded and remotely influenced or “interrogated” with neuro-weaponry and neuro-implants, and that “non-lethal” radiation weaponry is being used in tandem covertly on bodies, possibly to assist in covert, trauma-based neuro-modification and “interrogation” programs.

If these are the “intelligence sources and methods” of 21st-century interrogation that the CIA wishes to keep secret, then perhaps the entire classification category of “sources and methods of gathering intelligence” should be publicly and stringently questioned.

Clearly their misstep of not obtaining Informed Consent from American experimentees first makes it inevitable that non-consensual experimentation on Americans using these sources and methods should eventually bring these particular sources and methods to light, as current public comment from victims makes evident.

cia12333a

Executive Order 12333/CIA Website

Other non-consensual CIA research on human subjects that Americans will not soon forget is MK ULTRA. And today’s victims aver no less of a holocaust on their bodies and brains in stringent and inhumane experimentation than a new MK ULTRA.

4. SACHRP stepping away from responsibility for Intelligence Surveillance exclusion

Also noteworthy is the fact that SACHRP, whose stated intention is “to advise the Secretary on how to improve the quality of the system of human research protection programs, including the responsibilities of investigators, institutional review boards (IRBs), administrators, and institutional officials, and the role of the Office for Human Research Protections and other offices within the Department of Health and Human Services”, appears to be disavowing itself of any responsibility with regard to Intelligence Surveillance research or “activities”:

At the December 2015 SACHRP meeting, SACHRP noted that there is public concern about the Intelligence Surveillance proposed exclusion but stated that they do not have the expertise to provide commentary. SACHRP encouraged additional public justification for and description of this exclusion.” Victim Stakeholder Summary (described further below)

This was also noted by SACHRP in their own public comment on the NPRM:

“SACHRP notes there is public concern about this proposed exclusion, but SACHRP does not have the expertise to provide commentary. SACHRP encourages additional public justification for and description of this exclusion.” Victim Stakeholder Summary, Intelligence Comments, Non-TI (described further below)

Who would have the expertise then, if not SACHRP? The specific Government agencies—Military, Intelligence, Justice–potentially requesting and impacted by this proposed Intelligence Surveillance exclusion did not publicly respond to this SACHRP invitation.

Notably, we did not find any comments that offered the perspective of a current or former Government person or entity who explained specifically why the proposed exclusion would be helpful as a future government policy.” Karla Smith, Public Comment at SACHRP, May 19

Implications: To conclude this section on possible behind-the-scenes management of the NPRM, public discussion of the Intelligence Surveillance exclusions, SACHRP, and the President’s Bioethical Commission, an added concern must be noted, given the numbers of people coming forward as non-consensual victims of classified research today:

If the new Common Rule continues on this path and fully excises all classified research being conducted by Defense, Justice, National Security, or Intelligence agencies from needing to be accountable to or to respect the requirements of the Common Rule in the protection of human subjects, would this also be a way to justify past and currently-extant non-consensual human experimentation that is being widely and insistently reported today, but which these groups haven’t owned up to yet?

Public Comments on Intelligence Surveillance Exclusions Independently Analyzed by Non-Consensual Experimentation Victim Activists

The information below relies in great part on two important analyses of these public comments, submitted to SACHRP by researchers Norman Rabin, Karla Smith, and Cait Ryan: a two-part Victim Stakeholder Summary described as representing “the victims of ongoing Non-Consensual Human Research/Experimentation, plausibly related to the testing of Classified Intelligence Surveillance technologies and/or methods including Remote Weapons testing, Neurotechnologies, and other technologies”.

This Summary, with Norman Rabin, author, reminds SACHRP of the Stakeholder landscape for the NPRM:

The September 8, 2015 NPRM…has among its stakeholders: the general Public; persons and institutions conducting or likely to conduct future human subject research; and, persons who are currently, or who have been Human Subjects of Human Research, or persons likely to be participants in future Human Research.

“Most prominent and numerous among consensual or non-consensual human subjects who submitted Public Comment to the NPRM, and/or to the preceding ANPRM, are citizens who are victims of alleged apparent non-consensual human experimentation, mainly alleged testing of technology which is plausibly related to the testing of Intelligence Surveillance technologies and methods.” Victims Stakeholder Summary, Intelligence Comments, Non-TI

The term “Targeted Individual” or “TI” which has entered the public lexicon is also used here to denote those claiming victimization by such technology experimentation.

The Victim Stakeholder Summary is divided into two parts, one collecting, analyzing, and presenting comments on the Intelligence Surveillance exclusion from Non-Victim or Non-TI public commenters, and one presenting comments from Victims or Tis.

Describing the concerns of this group in a letter directed to SACHRP, Norman Rabin wrote:

Please be clear to understand, and to assure action or to urge action, reflecting that:

Our Ongoing Injustice Issue alleges a Large Scale Ongoing, Human Research/ Experimentation Program, which subjects citizens to Severe violations of Human Rights and the most basic, and fundamental Constitutional Rights, including daily liberty, the security of one’s own person and privacy of their body and brain, and freedom from repeated Cruel and/or Inhumane Treatment. This Program is alleged to have 500 to 2000 or so Ongoing victims across the U.S.”

..Because our Stakeholders seem to have been ignored in the Governmental Public Summaries of the ANPRM, it is important for our Stakeholder Summary to be clearly presented to OHRP, and to the Rulemaking, and to SACHRP, so that the very epitome of Rights Violations and Wrongdoing in the name of “Human Research” will not continue to occur. Norman Rabin, Letter to Julia Gorey, Executive Director, SACHRP, May 11, 2016

It must be stressed here that the “victims” this Summary calls attention to are the hundreds and thousands of Americans and citizens worldwide who have been coming forward over the past few decades to report experiences of being experimented upon, with visual and documented evidence of repeated assaults on their bodies and brains with electromagnetic signals of various kinds, including high-powered microwaves, and radiometric and toxicological evidence of non-consensual implantation with RFID chips, bio-MEMs, neuro-implants, and nano-technology.

The very fact that a single person, let alone hundreds or thousands, should come forward to report non-consensual experimentation on their bodies with radiation weaponry or RFID chips should ring a sharp warning bell to all of humanity, that once again, classified, secretive, and abusive human experimentation is indeed taking place in our midst.

Concerns About Covert Intelligence/Justice Activities Evading Informed Consent Expressed By Universities, Advocacy Groups, Physicians, Attorneys, Psychologists

It is important to note first though that concerns about covert Intelligence and Justice surveillance activities weakening protections for human subjects come from a variety of sources, including universities, advocacy groups, physicians, psychologists, attorneys, and concerned citizens.

Humans Harmed Significantly In Past Experiments Hidden by Secrecy and “National Security”

Notable public comments include those of Jeffrey Kaye, Ph.D, psychologist, blogger, and journalist, who has addressed torture in both his psychotherapy practice and writing, and submitted a 7-page comment with 2 pages of footnotes. He is unequivocal in his recommendation that the NPRM’s “intelligence surveillance” proposal, as also “criminal justice” proposed exclusions, and changes to federal policy regarding prisoners be “soundly rejected”:

“Currently, the Department of Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), and the intelligence agencies that operate under the umbrella of the Department of Defense, are all regulated by 45 CFR 46, and protection of human subjects falls under the Common Rule. There is good reason historically for this, as government agencies, often under the auspices of “national security,” failed to protect human beings who were harmed significantly under experiments undertaken by such agencies.”

“These agencies act under a veil of secrecy, and safeguards on potential misuse of actions considered research, as defined, or even potentially close to [being considered] research, should be strengthened, not weakened.” Jeffrey Kaye, Ph.D, Public Comment, NPRM

Dr. Jeffrey Kaye included in his comment mention of various recent reports and exposés calling into question the CIA/DoD recourse to Informed Consent waivers in human experimentation, including these:

Jason Leopold and Jeffrey Kaye, “Wolfowitz Directive Gave Legal Cover to Detainee Experimentation Program,” Truthout, Oct. 14, 2010;

A Navy slide presentation at DoD Training Day (PDF)–“DON Human Research Protection Program: What’s New -14 November 2006”;

American Servicemen Used As Guinea Pigs – Tests Revealed DOD Releases Project SHAD Fact Sheets”, (no date, but first webpage circa 2002);

and a report from the National Research Council (NRC) 2008 , “Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience and Related Technologies”.

Specifically, Dr. Kaye noted that these reports and documents called attention to fairly recent—and egregious—Military lapses and failures of protection to human subjects, and a “history of attempts by DoD officials to push back against such restrictions,” as in the Guantanamo CIA torture experimentation programs on prisoners, under guise of testing interrogation techniques; in the 1970s Project Shad subjection of 4000 Navy men to dangerous chemicals, radioactive materials, and bacteria; and other notorious DOD Human Research programs, which took decades to be disclosed, after years of government denials. In Guantanamo, prisoner of war protections under the Geneva Conventions were stripped by the US Government using the 2002 Wolfowitz Directive for prisoners of the “war on terror”, and which led to the rephrasing of experimentation on Guantanamo prisoners as “enhanced interrogation.”

Additionally, Dr. Kaye notes that the NRC report on Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience found that the current system of human protections in military research does not safeguard against intentional wrongdoing, nor against the circumvention of research rules by setting up “convenient alternative frameworks (such as field testing).” Procedures and policies in place for conducting medical experiments on military personnel offer guidance, are formal, even “rigorous,” but are not clear enough to stop abuse from occurring. Ultimately, the report concludes that it is questionable whether such classified research is ethically sound at all, given its basic lack of transparency and public accountability.

Dr. Kaye stresses that these conclusions are particularly germane in light of the used phrasing of field testing, program evaluation, program assessment, and adjustment of technique to mask the extreme programs of experimentation and torture carried out at Guantanamo. The question of what constitutes research and what doesn’t should not be an issue for contention, he suggests.

The point is that in the case of intelligence or national security agencies, especially those aspects covered by secrecy and classification, or that are “covert,” determinations of what is and what is not research, i.e., what can be covered or monitored by the Common Rule, what the “exceptions” are, is actually nonsensical. Either the coverage is complete and total, or it is not.” Jeffrey Kaye, Ph.D, Public Comment, NPRM

Commenting on the recently exposed CIA torture program, he points out that OHRP referred issues there back to the CIA:

In the case of the CIA experimental torture or “enhanced interrogation” program, OHRP referred any research misdeeds back to the agency itself, in this case, back to the CIA. Such is their policy, which in this case is shown as grossly inadequate.

The fact remains, as documented in the recent release of the Executive Summary of the Senate Select Committee Intelligence report on the CIA’s torture program, that the plans for the “enhanced interrogation” program were formed in the same division of the CIA that ran the MKULTRA program.

Do we really want less, not more, safeguards on “intelligence surveillance” activities?” Jeffrey Kaye, Ph.D, Public Comment, NPRM

Dr. Kaye also cites a Jan 2015 letter by two United Nations Special Rapporteurs to the US Government on the role of health professionals in the CIA interrogation program and subsequent lack of investigation into allegations there of experimentation, not interrogation, as further support for restricting the CIA and other Intel agencies from conducting classified experimentation without Informed Consent, stating “the secrecy of the intelligence and covert operations world cannot allow any weakening of research or informed consent protections, as the agencies involved are without moral scruple, and have a long and even recent history of covering up misdeeds.”

“We are slipping away from the lessons learned from the Nuremberg trials.”

An attorney, William A. Brant, P.E., J.D., reminded the Committee of the primacy of lessons learned from the Nuremberg trials, and the absolute need for fully Informed Consent in all research involving humans:

I am reminded of an August 15, 1997, article in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Vol. 127, No. 4) by Edmund D. Pellegrino, M.D. that I believe is applicable to my comments here.

Nearly 70 years ago now, we learned of the moral depravity of the 20 Nazi physicians who were tried and convicted at Nuremberg for their part in human experiments at Auschwitz. The moral lessons learned seem obvious today and the crime so heinous that it seems silly to revisit now. Surely, those crimes and sheer lack of morality could never happen again.

“However, this is a dangerous conclusion, writes Dr. Pellegrino, and I agree. Moral lessons are quickly and easily forgotten. Medical ethics is more fragile than we think and is on a slippery slope. Moral reasoning based on defective premises tends to recur in new settings. Nazi physicians believed they were doing the right thing when they performed their experiments on humans.

“The first guiding principle of the Nuremberg Code mandated, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”

“We are slipping away from the lessons learned from the Nuremberg trials. We are failing to respect the absoluteness of truly informed consent to strengthen regulatory mechanisms regarding research involving humans. Informed consent is the very bedrock of human rights. Truly informed consent is complete disclosure of every aspect and use of any biospecimen taken from a human. Anything less than truly informed consent violates what we learned from Nuremberg and basic human rights and dignity.

The proposed new rules should reflect truly informed consent. William A. Brant, P.E. J.D., Public Comment, NPRM

Guatemala STD Experiments Suggest the Common Rule Must Be Strengthened Further

Calling to attention the recently-revealed Guatemala STD experiments where soldiers, prisoners, children, and mentally-ill patients were non-consensually experimented on and infected with syphilis and gonorrhea in the ’40s and ’50s in medical research approved by Johns Hopkins University and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, commenter Robert García, Founding Director and Counsel, The City Project, with the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California and Henry Dahl, asked that the Common Rule be strengthened to prevent future human rights violations.

[Commenter] submits these public comments to revise the Common Rule by incorporating lessons learned from the US STD experiments in Guatemala in order to modernize, strengthen, and make more effective the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. LCHC serves as the leading voice for Latino health in California .. . Henry Dahl is an attorney with experience in international law and human rights.

The City Project represents the Catholic Archdiocese of Guatemala in the petition before the International Human Rights Commission against the US and Guatemala for crimes against humanity and human rights violations in the STD experiments.” Robert Garcia, Public Comment, NPRM

Two of the five points stressed by Robert Garcia asked explicitly that the Common Rule be strengthened further, not watered down:

1. The Common Rule must explicitly recognize that non-consensual human medical experiments violate domestic and international laws.
“2.
The content of the Common Rule must be strengthened to recognize that voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. Robert Garcia, Public Comment, NPRM

Michael A. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, Professor and Vice Chair of Research, David Geffen School of Medicine (UCLA), also mentioned the Guatemala experiments and quoted from the Informed Consent requirement of the Nuremberg Code:

The content of the Common Rule must be strengthened to recognize that voluntary and informed consent of the human subject is absolutely essential….[This means that the person involved] should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. …Informed consent should be culturally and linguistically appropriate as well…Cases of human rights violation and unethical dealings of research conducted both abroad and in US, should include financial and emotional compensation for the subjects involved.” Michael A.Rodriguez, MD, MPH, Public Comment, NPRM

“Lousy with Loopholes”: Even Current Regulations for Classified Research Don’t Protect Informed Consent

Compliance with the extant Common Rule would imply the acquisition and documentation of Informed Consent from all those participating in research. Many observers note however that Intelligence agencies make use of loopholes to evade Consent requirements.

A comment submitted by Lizbet Boroughs for the Association of American Universities, and Association of Public Land Grant Universities noted that their member organizations found the exclusions unclear while observing that existing regulations “already allow department or agency heads to waive the applicability of some or all of the regulatory provisions for specific research activities or classes of research activities so long as OHRP is notified.”

The Victim Stakeholder Summary notes, on this comment, that, as per the current Common Rule, even notification to OHRP is not stringently required for waivers, particularly for classified Intelligence Surveillance activities, where agencies may also be held by classification law from publishing advance notice in the Federal Register or even providing notice to OHRP.

ciadhsnprm

NPRM/Excerpt

Currently, the Central Intelligence Agency is supposedly required to, by Executive Order 12333, comply with all subparts of 45 CFR part 46, while the Department of Homeland Security, created after issuance of the Common Rule, is also required to apply all subparts of 45 CFR part 46 to its human research activities.

Robin Baker, supporter of The Electronic Frontier Foundation, relays the reality on the ground, quoting partially from their recent article examining protections, Human Research Loopholes: Alive and Well:

The Common Rule is supposed to affirmatively protect us from the abuses of the future. However, the proposed regulation is lousy with loopholes, including ones that could exempt tracking online behavior and experiments related to intelligence activities.

“This federal policy purportedly binds the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and numerous other agencies, including the CIA and Department of Homeland Security (per Executive Order 12333). But as we’ve seen, these agencies are adept at honing in on small loopholes, so the proposed language needs a serious edit if it is going to provide any real protection.” Robin Baker, Public Comment, NPRM

Electronic Frontier Foundation: Exclusions “Building In a Gaping Breach for DHS and the CIA”

In their article, Human Research Loopholes: Alive and Well, The Electronic Frontier Foundation notes further that setting up an exclusion for Intelligence Surveillance merely widens the loophole.

“HHS proposes absolute ethics-review exemptions for “intelligence surveillance activities.” This would exempt actions “conducted to fulfill a department or agency’s legal mandate to ensure the safety and protection of the United States, its people, and its national security interests.” The government is professing to fence DHS and the CIA in through E.O. 12333, but they’re actually building in a gaping breach for them to stroll right back out through.”

In a 10-page comment meticulously examining and disputing various aspects of the proposed changes such as the “burdensome” nature of tracking individual biospecimens over a 10-year period, attorney Lee Tien of the EFF noted the peculiar fact that the NPRM does not seek public comment on “one of the more problematic exemption-decisions” about whether an activity is “an intelligence surveillance activity” and elaborated on why this was of critical importance.

This determination should be subjected to a particularly stringent review process because of these agencies’ long histories abusing human subjects through creative interpretation of their mandates.”

Citing Project MKULTRA, The CIA’s Program of Research in Behavioral Modification, and the Memorandum from John C. Yoo, Re: Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States, he questioned the NPRM’s assumption that the Common Rule currently already views classified research conducted by Intelligence/National Security agencies as lawfully mandated functions of their being and fundamentally not research, and thereby has always exempted them from Informed Consent:

“As a preliminary concern, the NPRM claims to be “codify[ing] the current interpretation of the Common Rule.” 80 FR 53950. It is unclear to us what authority supports this claim. This was not apparent from the ANPRM, and is not identified in the NPRM. Second, if HHS believes that this authority justifies the exemption, it should identify the reasoning it found persuasive when deciding to codify the existing interpretation. At present, it is doubtful that this claim is supported by the record.”

Lee Tien also questions the ambiguity in wording regardingsurveillance activities and related analyses” asking for clarification, since “this offers practically no limitation to an intelligence community with a history of expansively interpreting limited exemptions. There should be a discussion, a representative list, or at a minimum a modifier added here to give future courts or administrative law judges some sort of applicable standards to apply if a dispute arises.”

Lee Tien further examines the use of biospecimens permitted for use by Intelligence/Military institutions, noting:

HIPAA’s national security exception currently permits doctors, hospitals, and any other “covered entity” to disclose individual health information “to authorized federal officials for the conduct of lawful intelligence, counter-intelligence, and other national security activities authorized by the National Security Act” without patient authorization.”

Given that, he notes clarification is in order: “(T)he NPRM should clarify that the exemption only applies to biospecimen analysis if the biospecimen was collected for that particular use, and by a “defense, national security, or homeland security authority solely for authorized intelligence, homeland security, defense, or other national security purposes.” 80 FR 53950. As presently written, the language appears to potentially allow for the “use” of a biospecimen that was “collected” by a different agency, “collected” for a different purpose, or both.

It would be perverse indeed for the updated Common Rule to quietly facilitate the creation or expansion of a permanent intelligence community biospecimen bank.”

CIRCARE: “Exclusions show the Government declines its mandate to protect research subjects”

Attorney Gerald Schatz, speaking for CIRCARE, Citizens for Responsible Care and Research, and offering detailed human rights law analysis of the NPRM in an attached 82-page document that can be found here, recommended that all proposed exclusions should be stricken.

Investigators are not disinterested and should not make the decision as to whether their projects do or do not come within the ambit of the Common Rule….

Intelligence and national security have been used to rationalize experiments with dubious surveillance technique research. James Risen, Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War (2014) Rachel Levinson-Waldman, What the Government Does with Americans’ Data, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law (2013).

And the intelligence and national security rationale has been used for research and experimentation with unlawful interrogation techniques. David J. Hoffman, et al. Report to the Special Committee of the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association: Independent Review Relating to APA Ethics Guidelines, National Security Interrogations, and Torture (Sidley Austin LLC 2015); Senate Committee on Armed Services, Report: Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody, 110th Cong. 2d sess. (2008), passim; Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report: Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program, S. Rep. 113-288, 113th Cong., 2d sess. (1914), passim; Steven H. Miles, Oath Betrayed: America’s Torture Doctors (2009) & Doctors Who Torture (2015).

Citing the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Project which operated as training while building data banks, he notes:

In the national security area the line separating operations from research subject to Common Rule scrutiny evidently has not been clear enough…. Where there is a Government-approved research purpose, there should be no categorical exclusions from the Common Rule. It is a failure of respect for persons and is contrary to law to deny the right, among others, to fully informed consent, in circumstances conducive to voluntariness, [and] contravenes the law.”

Responding to NPRM questions on whether proposed exclusions would limit the rights of human subjects or compromise scientific integrity, he notes:

As a legal matter, rights do not change; they are inherent or recognized in positive law. The human subjects regulations cannot accord or diminish rights; they are supposed to be protective of rights. We point out above…the proposed categorical exclusions disregard rights and eliminate or weaken mandated protections.

The proposed exclusions show that the Government declines its mandate to protect research subjects and that it defers to some researchers who consider themselves above ethical scrutiny.”

Children are not a national security risk, they don’t require surveillance.”

Children’s inherent rights to privacy and their vulnerability to data collection, profiling, and surveillance as part of Intelligence agency research was examined in a comment by Cheri Kiesecki:

Privacy is a fundamental human right, and should especially apply to our most vulnerable population, children. … The proposed regulations in “Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects” would allow tracking of online behavior and experiments related to intelligence activities. Existing loopholes in COPPA [Children’s (under age 13) Online Privacy Protection Act (a Congressionally mandated federal rule)] exempt[s] government entities and nonprofits, allowing these entities to profile and share, even sell children’s data.”

Institutions and online applications that profile a child, collect personal behavioral, non-cognitive, predictive, pii data and share said data with agencies, vendors, researchers, and institutions outside of the classroom are not transparently communicating this activity to parents. Parents are largely unaware this data collection is happening.”

She suggested removing these loopholes, noting, “Children are not a national security risk, they don’t require surveillance. Children deserve a chance to live their life unfettered by a preconceived digital profile.”

American Psychological Association Approves Intelligence/Justice Exclusions Despite New Ban on APA Participation in National Security Interrogations

The American Psychological Association (APA) (comment excerpted below) pointed to confusion being engendered by new categories of exclusions and suggested that the basic definition of “research with human participants” instead be used to define exclusions. They also underscored the need for proposals in the NPRM to be more fully discussed and vetted by the research community, prior to finalizing the Common Rule.

Astonishingly however, and notably, without discussion of any kind whatsoever, they recommended, in summary, that the Intelligence Surveillance exclusion be retained, as also the Criminal Justice exclusion:

Although APA is supportive of the proposal to expand the list of types of research activities that do not need to meet the requirements of the Common Rule, we believe that the addition of the new category of “exclusions” alongside the old and new exemptions is confusing. Only those activities that do not meet the definition of “research with human participants” (program improvement, quality assurance/quality improvement, public health surveillance, biographies, etc.) should be explicitly excluded from the requirements of the Common Rule.”

In summary, our suggestion would be to retain §___.101(b)(1)(i) and (iii)-(vi) as well as §___.101(b)(2)(iii) and §___.101(b)(3) as exclusions.”

(The Intelligence Surveillance exclusion is NPRM at §___.101 (b)(vi); the Criminal Justice exclusion is NPRM at §___.101 (b)(iii))

Their conclusions re-state this opinion:

We believe that many of the proposed revisions do indeed have the potential to reduce burdens on institutions, IRBs, and investigators, without compromising protections for human participants in research. These include the explicit exclusion of activities deemed not to be research.”

Many, if not most, of these proposals, however, have yet to be fully developed and vetted with the research community, and as such, APA does not believe that the NPRM can be the penultimate step before a final rule is issued by the agencies that are signatories to the Common Rule.”

Regarding this APA comment, the Victim Stakeholder Summary authored by researcher and activist Norman Rabin provides a crucial contextualizing in light of the recent APA involvement in exposed CIA Torture which sought to shield itself initially as “Enhanced Interrogation”:

Note: this Comment ought to be considered with an “*” [asterisk], regarding the “Intelligence Surveillance Activities” proposal, because APA was the subject of a widely Publicized Public Scandal:

–which reported upon APA (former APA officials’) involvement in Torture-related Prisoner Interrogations, and reported APA maintaining weakened policies for member behavior to satisfy Pentagon preferences; and,

–which reported upon APA organizational upheaval within the APA in response to it.

New York Times, July 10, 2015: Psychologists Shielded US Torture Program, Report Finds

Guardian, July 14, 2015: CIA Torture Report/ Three senior officials lose their jobs at APA after US torture scandal/ American Psychological Association framed the departures of its chief executive officer, deputy CEO and communications chief as ‘retirements’ and resignations

New York Times, August 8, 2015: Psychologists Approve Ban on Role in National Security Interrogations

Therefore, the Public might reasonably expect that the APA would have voiced concern, or at least acknowledged, that U.S. Defense and Intelligence activities not only have a questionable history of non-consensual human experimentation, but even relatively recently, U.S. Defense and Intelligence have shown their capacity to fail to be proactive in applying human subjects protections.

­Note: Besides the Public Scandal involving questions of adherence to Ethics, and peripheral or closer involvement in U.S. Government torture–which are sufficient for this ‘asterisk’–part of the Public Scandal did in fact concern the human testing of Interrogation Techniques (as in fact is mentioned in filed Public Comment 0559 (of CIRCARE (excerpted above)).] Norman Rabin, Victim Stakeholder Summary, Non-TI comments

Constitutionally Protected Rights to Privacy, Dissent Challenged by Criminal Justice Exclusion

CrimJustCommenting on another proposed area of weakening protections, Criminal Justice, where such Common Rule weakening is being sought in the “collection and analysis of data, biospecimens, or records by or for a criminal justice agency for activities authorized by law or court order solely for criminal justice or criminal investigative purposes,” Dr. Jeffrey Kaye questioned the nature of such research, citing the 2012 case of Dr. Susan Brandon’s “research” for the FBI-led High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, where her observations and analyses of would-be assassin Manssor Arbabsiar’s interrogations ended up actually being used in the prosecution against him.

Gerald Schatz of CIRCARE also questioned the nature of data collection protected under this exclusion, mentioning a 2013 Twitter-message study conducted by Indiana University exploring political and geospatial idea dispersion in the Occupy Wall Street movement down to the individual, identified mobile telephone,” a study funded by DARPA, NSF, and the McDonnell Foundation, where researchers “perhaps assuming that Twitter users had agreed that anyone could use their data and metadata even if identifiable, could do what the U.S. Government itself was not supposed to do.” (Michael D. Conover et al. Geospatial Characteristics of a Social Movement Communication Network, PLOS ONE, http://www.plosone.org/artile/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0055957 (March 6, 2013).)

Research, development, and testing of technologies and methods relating to law enforcement and penology should not be excluded from the Common Rule when they seek or acquire data or biological material for identifiable individuals and are funded as research.”

He also cited a Senate committee report examining surveillance versus dissent, pointing to inherent problems with data-collection via surveillance which encroach on privacy rights:

Individual cases and programs of government surveillance which the Committee examined raise questions concerning the inherent conflict between the government’s perceived need to conduct surveillance and the citizens’ constitutionally protected rights of privacy and dissent. It has become clear that if some lose their liberties unjustly, all may lose their liberties. The protections and obligations of law must apply to all.” (Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Final Report: Foreign and Military Intelligence, Book I, 94th Cong., 2d sess. (1976) at 6-7.)

Referring to both criminal justice and intelligence and national security exclusions, he recommends:

This proposed law enforcement and national security exclusions should be stricken as too fraught with ethical and legal hazard and with necessity to distinguish between research and operations.”

NPRM Includes Weakened Protections for Prisoners

allen hornblumIn his remarks on the weakening of protections being sought also in the case of experimentation on prisoners (Subpart C of the Common Rule), Dr. Jeffrey Kaye notes the horrific abuse of prisoners in the ’60s and ’70s recorded by Allan Hornblum in Acres of Skin: Human Experiments at Holmesburg Prison, stating, “There is no reason to lighten the restrictions against such research, which was the result of decades of abuses,” and calling to mind “the dangers of unchecked power over a vulnerable population, the examples of which ruined untold number of lives.”

He cited these words from Allen Hornblum’s conclusion:

“It couldn’t happen in America” we reassured ourselves about medical practices in Nazi Germany. But intolerable medical practices were practiced on vulnerable populations in America, without the support of the political culture or the despotic leadership that captivated Germany under the Third Reich, without any protest from the AMA, which prides itself on its ability to regulate itself.

History suggests that we are as susceptible to abusing our socially and economically disenfranchised citizens as any other nation. If, as many believe, a democracy is only as strong as the respect accorded its weakest members, we must work to assure that neither these abuses nor the “conspiracy of silence” that makes them possible ever happen again. We must do this not only for the benefit of the powerless, but also for the benefit of society as a whole.” Allen Hornblum, Acres of Skin, Human Experiments at Holmesburg Prison

Responsibility of the OHRP and SACHRP to Americans Claiming Non-Consensual Human Experimentation

To what extent is the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) and SACHRP responsible for protecting those claiming to be the current subjects of classified research, under current Intelligence loopholes which waive Informed Consent?

In the hope that OHRP and SACHRP would indeed act to strengthen, not weaken protections for those being used non-consensually today in classified research projects, a small group of people claiming non-consensual subjection to clandestine experimentation came forward to present public comment.

It must be noted here that several in this group, as well as others, testified earlier at the SACHRP Dec 3-4 Meetings in 2015 and 2011, and also at the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues meetings in March and May 2011, video coverage for all of which may be found online (some links in Resources at end). It is important to note that public testimony of non-consensual experimentation has been continually coming forward for many years, yet no action by these Governmental institutions to investigate and terminate these deadly experiments has been forthcoming.

Cait Ryan: “Do Not Turn From Your Responsibility – Deny the Intelligence Agencies Waivers of Informed Consent”

kate1a

Cait Ryan, Director, US-CACH, Public Comment/SACHRP, May 18, 2016

Cait Ryan, Director of US-CACH, United States Coalition Against Covert Harassment, opened her public comment emphasizing that the Common Rule must not supersede the Constitution nor replace due process, which includes notice of government action, and opportunity for citizens to make a case.

The NRPM states that the rationale for excluding Defense or National Security-related activities is that their mandated missions are:

  • Field studies, not research and are not designated to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge, and
  • Solely conducted to fulfill a department or an agency’s legal mandate.

Under the definition of human subject:

#2. Interventions includes both physical procedures by which data are gathered, and manipulations of the subject or the subject’s environment are performed for research purposes.

My question to you is: How do you define physical procedure and how do you define manipulations? Do they include inflicting physical pain?

#3 Interaction includes communication or interpersonal contact between investigator and subject.

My question is, what do you mean by communication – is it verbal, is it data, wireless contact? Does the investigator, not knowing the subject’s name mean that the individual is NOT a human subject? Or if the individual is accessed remotely, would this too mean the individual is NOT a human subject?

My issue with these definitions and also with how you would define separately “field study”, “field research”, and “human research”. I cite for clarification a current General Dynamics grant* that allows for “field research” with directed energy and high powered pulse weapons. Please note these are remotely activated weapons upon the human body to develop and understand the bio effects associated with non-lethal weapons.

These include directed energy, riot control agents, broadband light, acoustic sounds, and blunt impact. Under the current definition of human subject, the fact that these are applied remotely questionably skirts the definition and no oversight is applied, potentially subjecting human subjects to what can be lethal violent force – which I remind you is unseen.

So, I request that you remedy the human subject definition to account for current technology. I ask that you include “field study”.

In today’s rapidly increasing technology it IS generalizable knowledge and it is foolish to think that there is no crossover into the public sector when military weapons are now being shifted from military to local law enforcement and Homeland Security.” Cait Ryan, Public Comment/SACHRP, May 18, 2016

She also noted that her organization had learned that 62-67 victims of unethical ongoing experimentation had submitted comment, and reminded the OHRP of their responsibility to stand up to the Intelligence Agencies who sought to hide their research from Common Rule scrutiny via exclusions;

Their comments have given me a greater understanding that it is critical that you act to prioritize protections over research.

I plead with you to do the right thing: follow the lead of the Department of Energy’s legal counsel which recently stated “The Clinton Memo still has legal effect”. Tighten the rules, guarantee Informed Consent. And please, do not turn from your responsibility – deny the Intelligence Agencies waivers of Informed Consent, place field studies under the same oversight as research. Demand transparency.” Cait Ryan, Public Comment/SACHRP, May 18, 2016

Peter Rosenholm: “Don’t you think you should be listening when people die, people commit suicide who were in an experiment?

peter1a

Peter Rosenholm, Public Comment/SACHRP, May 18, 2016

Peter Rosenholm said he wished to talk about “some of the real crimes that were going on,” and called attention to Seroquel clinical trials in which he said he was an unwitting participant (as clarified later: in Rhode Island, from 2001-2006, something he says he learned about only from his medical records). He mentioned Carl Elliot, asking if the Committee had heard of him–to which he says most around the table nodded. Carl Elliott, MD, Ph.D is a bioethicist who has spoken out against the abuses in psychiatric research in 2003 AstroZeneca/Seroquel clinical trials at the University of Minnesota where a young man then being treated for psychosis, Dan Markingson, committed suicide while signed on to hazardous Seroquel studies, when Elliott and others say he should have been considered mentally incapacitated at the time, and unable to give Informed Consent for participation in the Seroquel trials.

I hate to say it but I was in the Seroquel experiment and it was never told, it destroyed my health and my life…Carl Elliott is exposing what’s going on in experimentation, and it is ugly. It’s because companies are making billions of dollars…they are setting up an experiment, almost every IRB is being approved–they are making billions, people’s lives are being destroyed.

So in other words people are dying, people are committing suicide, this should be listed. You talked earlier about it. Sometimes people die, should we list it? I think you should. I think there needs to be more transparency.

I spoke to the Bioethics Director, Amy Gutmann, I said if you believe you’re in an experiment which I found out I was later, up to 1400 milligrams of Seroquel, five or six years because I made complaints against a local government agency, they are using experimentation as a hit squad.

So there are those of us dying over it, committing suicide, we get thrown into experimentation.

I notice you don’t want to get into the ugly side, but Carl Elliott exposed it, you know it’s there.

I’d like to ask you quickly: what can you do to stop this? How can you be more transparent? Don’t you think you should be listening when people die, people commit suicide who were in an experiment? Shouldn’t we be able to look up that we are in an experiment? Can anyone give an answer to any of that?” Peter Rosenholm, Public Comment, SACHRP, May 18, 2016

Joan Dawson: “We ask that people in paid positions not safeguard your careers while letting our lives be sacrificed.”

joan1a

Joan Dawson, Public Comment/SACHRP, May 18, 2016

Joan Dawson opened her comment with an anecdote about her mother a few weeks before she died:

In December of 2012 my mother had suffered a heart attack and we were in the rehabilitation facility, and it was me, my mother and my sister, and my mother found this very large paper clip on the floor and she reached down, picked it up and went to me and said, do you want this? We said, okay, I put it in my pocket.”

She went on to mention that paper clips kept showing up around her later, after her mother passed, in the oddest places, becoming her mother’s “calling card.”

The unstated reference to Project Paperclip, the post-World War II US Government initiative that fudged Nazi-background data to bring more than 1600 Nazi scientists to work with the US military and intelligence agencies–rescuing them, ironically enough, from the Nuremberg tribunals, and installing them later in such grisly CIA experiments on humans as MK ULTRA and MK DELTA–possibly did not go unnoticed by anyone in the room.

Relevant in this context are words from President Eisenhower’s farewell address, where he admitted a scientist who gave him pause for concern was the celebrated Paperclipper Werner von Braun, and pointed to the dangers of public policy in science being hijacked by an elite:

In holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Cited in James Norwood’s New York Times review of Annie Jacobsen’s book, Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program That Brought Nazi Scientists to America.

Joan Dawson’s powerful and moving testimony included personal experience, a direct address to the SACHRP Committee, and a reading of the names of many of those who have died as a result of the non-consensual experimentation performed on them today:

I worked for a Federal contractor, I was a whistleblower. I experienced mobbing which is when your co-workers turn against you, psychological abuse, I left. I thought it was over, and it came back to haunt me again, and I left my job in 2013 and recreated my life with six income streams, six months later it fell apart, I experienced mobbing again. One job, a man told me this is what you get when you mess with the police. The next week, everywhere I looked there was a police officer.

My life has become a nightmare. Part of me wanted to say walking up here, Dead Woman Walking. You probably won’t believe what my life is like. I do believe I’m in COINTELPRO. There was recently a sign-on letter by 60 organizations including one where I served for five years as Secretary and Board Member…We believe it’s a combination of COINTELPRO and testing with military weapons…directed energy weapons, nano-technology, different types of tracking with chips..these are weapons that are like Next Gen weapons which are being researched .. and you can find the research studies when you Google it. So I attest that I am definitely in COINTELPRO and could be used for experimentation.”

joan2a

Joan Dawson: “We ask that human beings are not sacrificed …for the benefit of the common good, that’s what the Nazis did.”

We ask that people we talk to in these paid positions not safeguard your careers while letting our lives be sacrificed. We ask that human beings are not sacrificed for this country for the benefit of the common good, that’s what the Nazis did. And they had to sell their messages to professionals and to the public. And that’s being done today. We also know about the experiment with the obedience to authority, where over 61% administered pain to another human being if instructed by authorities. They rationalized their behavior by appealing to the greater good and for the advancement of science.We have enough in our history to teach us what’s right today. And this is not right, what is happening to us.

We ask that consent be given in all physical, mental behavior studies and not have waivers for heads of Federal agencies. We ask that this be done whether the person, human being, is in a lab or in a remote situation or they are at home or on the street. Because that can be done with technology.

We ask that consent be given in unclassified and classified research. We ask for help, what do we need, we have the numbers. We know we have the numbers of experimentees, we have the evidence, we have whistleblowers who acknowledge and confirm our allegations. What do we need more?

We ask that there are term limits on this. We understand National Security. We’re all citizens. We ask there be term limits on this, or a way to opt out. Currently there’s only one way to opt out, and it’s death.

joan3a

Joan Dawson/Reading the names of the dead from current-day non-consensual experimentation in the United States of America/SACHRP, May 18, 2016

And these are the people I’m familiar with, not whom I know, but names that I know who have died from being in this.

Kelly Cassler in 2015.

Gail Whittaker, Harlan Girard, in 2015.

Darren Dowd from electronic harassment.

Sean Stin in 2012.

Elvira Anderson, 2012, suicide.

Ray Costkey, in April of 2013.

Sarah Metheny in September of 2014.

Alexandra Foster, 2015, 33 years old, suicide.

John Lang in January of 2016. Predicted he would be killed by the Fresno cops, he died of stab wounds, house set on fire. He was a Targeted Individual as many of us call ourselves.

Ron Gilman, 2016, Voice to Skull, which used to be called Voice of God in the Persian Gulf war. He had two daughters.

Jessica Davis Thompson in February of 2016. Died of suicide. She lived in Washington State, she called herself a Targeted Individual.

Carol S. Peoples, died at the age of 43.

Jacqueline Feely Ross, died in November of 2015.

Benjamin Alan Murphy in the United Kingdom, 57 years old.

Myron May, FSU shooter, Targeted Individual, young man who was an attorney.

Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter, was a Targeted Individual. He was shot, was receiving electronic harassment.

Miriam Carey, who made the illegal u-turn in the White House heard voices that sounded like Obama, that’s Voice to Skull, used to be called Voice of God, they can morph (voices), it’s a technology available.

Debra Gillmaker is the last name.

These are people that we know were targeted and that died. The only opt-out is death. And that’s why I said Dead Woman Walking.

Because suicide … I mean, we need to opt out. You have no idea what this does to our lives.” Joan Dawson, Public Comment, SACHRP, May 18, 2016

Cassandra Lewis: “We know technologies are being developed the public doesn’t know about–somebody needs to look into what’s happening”

CassandraLewis1

Cassandra Lewis, Public Comment/SACHRP, May 19, 2016

Cassandra Lewis, who noted that she testified in New York at the President’s Bioethical Commission meeting in 2011, stated that she started experiencing peculiar electromagnetic signals on her body after a misunderstanding with an attorney during a stint ­at a law firm in 2005 in Washington DC, Hogan Lovells, which led her to understand she had become “some kind of research subject”. A part of her comment follows:

Because these things are happening to me, I think that agencies should know about this and look into what I’m saying, there are others here who will probably report the same thing.

I get involuntary movements of my fingers, my thumbs, my legs. I get vibrations in different parts of my body. I get an intense heating of my skin. I get a freezing, icy coldness, that can be concentrated to different parts of my body…. I can get forced sleep. I can be jolted awake. I have facial muscle manipulations. I have forced sounds – I experience these guttural sounds that would happen in my throat, yet I would hear them in my head, it was really weird.

Casstech1

Cassandra Lewis: “Research being done very covertly with technologies the public doesn’t know about”/SACHRP, May 19

Someone forwarded to me some literature about a technology developed called Medusa. That is something developed by the Navy…I get a feeling sometimes when I lay down, it feels like some type of energy that’s going through me and it makes me feel weightless. Something happens to me where I will suddenly jerk, and it feels like electricity is going from the top of my head, it goes all through my body.

 

So these are the dominant things that have been happening to me. And so I think that when we come to you and we have been termed “Targeted Individuals,” why we are targeted, we really don’t know. However, we know that technologies are being developed that the general public does not know about, and we believe they are being tested secretly on innocent United States citizens. I’m one. And somebody needs to look into what’s happening.” Cassandra Lewis, Public Comment, SACHRP, May 19, 2016

Nola Alexander: “This Committee is the oversight for all Military, Federal, and Corporate research projects.”

nola2a

Nola Alexander, Public Comment/SACHRP, May 19, 2016

Nola Alexander, from Washington, DC, reminded the SACHRP Committee of the 1977 Hearings on (MKULTRA) Behavior Modification programs on non-consensual subjects, and informed them these had started up again, while the Common Rule had failed to protect “no consent” subjects. Mentioning a DARPA project on the Mind presented at a 2014 conference, she quoted a former Hill and White House official who informed researchers their main job was not doing good science but selling their research idea to Congress and the White House, however bad or good it was:

In the symposium “America’s Next Frontier: Conquering The Mind” held on September 24, 2014, the focus was on enhancing human intelligence. A panelist at this seminar spoke of a research project conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency called “Accelerated Learning.”

While projects like Accelerated Learning may be desired by many in order to compete in today’s education, economic, and social environments, one comment at this seminar was made by a public policy official, who “having worked on the Hill and at the White House doling out money”…alluded that it does not matter if your science is good or bad, old or new, or if falls through the cracks or is blossoming, you need to be charismatic and convince these entities that this is something we have to do.

I’m here today, to call attention to Behavior Modification Through Thought Process projects that are bad, old (they have been going on for quite sometime), and when we complain, our complaints have fallen through the cracks or ignored by this Committee which is the oversight for all Military, Federal, and Corporate research projects.

It is estimated that over 500,000 Americans including myself are no-consent human research subjects to unwarranted surveillance, thought identification, biometric physiological signatures used in neurosynaptic chips to cause “Synthetic Telepathy”, “Acoustic Infrasound and Ultrasound” which cause heating of human tissue and sickness, acoustic and optical Psycho Correction” – these terms have been listed in the U.S. Air Force Academy’s Non-lethal Terms and Reference.

And I would like to say personally as a Christian and believer in Jesus Christ as my Savior that this is Antichrist, and you may laugh and, you know, call it crazy, but it is against my religious beliefs to be a part of or participate in such a research as this.

So standing here before you, I would like to know what can we do, since we have given our issue to you of being non-consent human research subjects, to get you to take up our complaint and investigate it.” Nola Alexander, Public Comment, SACHRP, May 19, 2016

Karla Smith: “You have Enough Information to say No Waivers Of Informed Consent, PERIOD!”

Karla Smith, part of whose comment is relayed in earlier sections on the Victim Stakeholder Summary and the Clinton Memo, spoke emotionally and powerfully, for both herself, she said, and Norman Rabin, who was not present, and stressed the need for the SACHRP Committee to act to stop all waivers for Informed Consent, given her own experience of non-consensual surgery and implantation, and the need for all people to be secure and free from bodily intrusion and privacy rights violation.

KarlaRights1

Karla Smith, Public Comment/SACHRP, May 19, 2016/Speaking about human rights violations

Please note that our stakeholders continue to allege an on-going Human Research/ Experimentation Program, which subjects citizens and others to severe Human and Constitutional Rights violations which affects their daily liberty; the right to be secure in their own person; and freedom from repeated Cruel and Inhumane Treatment. It is imperative that each person’s autonomy, self-determination, human dignity and constitutional rights prevail over scientific advancement and social and military benefit.

We have a history of non-consensual human experimentation that is well documented. I didn’t know about it until I became a victim. Yet victims’ comments to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues and other agencies continue to be ignored.

All Federal regulations should reflect publicly acknowledged Constitutional and human rights. Additionally, the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects should truly be Proactively Protective of Human Subjects.

Victims have been experiencing this for over 50 years, and on a personal note, I have been tested–over 20 implants were found including neural dust. Neural dust was originally developed by UC Berkeley, and includes a subdural transceiver that’s under the skull. It also includes an external transceiver and CMOS chips overlaid over the cortex.

(Note: Karla Smith offers this correction to her spoken comment: EMF emissions (consistent with implants) were found at 20 sites on my body. I said over 20 because I also found wires in my ears, what appear to be implants in my ears and sinus/nostrils with a cheap endoscope.)

Karlascars1

Karla Smith, Public Comment, May 19, 2016/Speaking about scars from non-consensual surgery

You can see that I have surgery scars. It was non-consensual–and I implore you to just make it illegal, even if you don’t believe it. Even if you ignore the history. Even if you ignore our testimony. You have enough information to say No Waivers Of Informed Consent, period!” Karla Smith, Public Comment, SACHRP, May 18, 2016

 

SACHRP’s Response to Powerful Public Testimony of Current-Day Non-Consensual Experimentation by DoD/DOJ/Intelligence Agencies and Medical Professionals

Public comment on the first day (from Cait Ryan, Peter Rosenholm, Joan Dawson) was briefly acknowledged and thanked by SACHRP Chair, Dr. Jeffrey Botkin, who is Professor of Medical Ethics and Pediatrics at the University of Utah.

On the second and concluding day, after comment from Cassandra Lewis, Nola Alexander, and Karla Smith, Dr. Botkin expressly stated that SACHRP could not follow up on the “concerns” expressed regarding ongoing non-consensual research and experimentation in the nation:

The Committee very much appreciates the ongoing testimony of the public on this set of issues. SACHRP traditionally has not been a Committee that is geared to respond to allegations in the community and sort of take up specific cases, so our Committee isn’t well suited to follow up on the concerns that you express. So at a minimum, we are happy to serve as a platform to bring these concerns forward to the research community generally and certainly to OHRP and others.”

While public platforms are certainly needed for the public airing of information on covertly-conducted non-consensual experimentation, there are a few points to be made here.

ONE, SACHRP is the appointed committee of medical professionals working on making changes to the Common Rule, a Federal standard of protection for human subjects in medical or other experiments, both unclassified and classified (the latter as per Executive Order 12333).

Although many analysts scrutinizing Intelligence and Military use of human subjects, historically, have noted that these “covered entities” have traditionally made use of loopholes in the Common Rule to secretly experiment on citizens (MKULTRA, Project Shad, Tuskegee, ’40s radiation experiments), the Common Rule is still the primary Rule they are required to keep to, on paper.

There are no other Federal regulations governing their use of human subjects. There are no other Federal bodies apart from OHRP and SACHRP publicly working to finalize changes to this Common Federal Regulation, even if other “Federal players” are involved. SACHRP is formulated in fact as an Advisory Committee to the Secretary of Health.

That in itself should necessarily involve and include SACHRP, OHRP, and HHS–in responsibility and accountability, for any cases of non-consensual experimentation being reported by the public—which would point to exploitation by secretive agencies and entities, possibly using loopholes in regulation.

To say, “We will help make and oversee the Rule (working with other Federal agencies) to protect human subjects, but if anyone comes along and says they are being used as human subjects in experiments they didn’t sign up for (by other Federal agencies), we’ll respond with silence,” cannot be acceptable.

TWO, openly rendering the Common Rule impotent via exclusions, as per the current NPRM that SACHRP is working on, would imply active steps by SACHRP to approve, permit, and sanction these exclusions—language for which they stated was provided by a variety of “Federal players”.

Allegations of non-consensual neuro-experimentation/Directed-Energy Weapon (DEW) field testing therefore in the community, denoting extant and ongoing secret experimentation (utilizing extant Common Rule loopholes) by these very same entities that are seeking to keep current secret neuro-experimentation/DEW testing and operation secret, and any future human experimentation secret—while completely stripping every American citizen (and indeed, others worldwide, through joint Intelligence Agency agreements worldwide) of the basic, Nuremberg-protection of Informed Consent in all present and future-case scenarios–should most certainly be an issue of concern to this Committee which is currently seeking or agreeing to set up the very body of regulations that will ultimately further protect Intelligence/National Security/DOD agencies and DOJ from public scrutiny.

In other words, the American public as a whole is served ill by an evading of responsibility at the level of SACHRP and OHRP, and such a “passing of the buck,” leaving no-one responsible, leaves the field wide open for abuse of human subjects, marking perhaps exactly what the Intel/military agencies and the DOJ want: high protection of Intelligence agencies/Military/Justice and private interests who seek carte blanche to continue engaging in extremely damaging, pain-inducing, life-destroying classified research and deadly new weapons testing and operation on Americans without their consent.

It is not acceptable therefore—and the public should point this out—that the actual arbiters and makers of change, code, regulation, and policy, i.e., inclusive of Congress, aided by SACHRP and OHRP (or whatever other Commission works on the NPRM for the Common Rule or any new Human Subject Protection Code as hinted at by the new June 29-released National Academies report), or the public face thereof—if that is alone what they are–can eschew responsibility in the issue of addressing allegations of non-consensual experimentation in the community.

As public commenters pointed out, such allegations point inevitably to undisclosed or classified activities and “covered entities”.

It should stand to reason that it is precisely the regulatory body whether HHS/SACHRP/OHRP which seeks to allow classified activities–under the guise of “activities,” not research–the use of unconsenting humans covertly as subjects for any kind of experimentation or investigation, that is indeed responsible and should indeed be held accountable when humans step forward to describe covert experiments being performed non-consensually on their bodies.

Particularly since they are the ones seeking or agreeing to exonerate the “covered entities” of any responsibility themselves.

Questions of Accountability: These are no doubt issues other analysts can contribute more powerfully to. The question however that is being raised here must not be lost sight of: When people in civil society are preyed upon, experimented upon, secretly, by “covered entities,” who do they complain to, in our society? Who is the public body that will take and investigate allegations? (As commenters note, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, supposedly set up to find out if research abuses were occurring today, chose to step away from responsibility–a very troubling issue in itself, which must be examined separately. If SACHRP steps away too, who is left?) What is the procedure for redress? Where is the Public Health attention to this issue? Particularly today, when directed-energy weapons are being field-tested—in Defense contracts—and are also operated “legally” by the Department of Justice as “non-lethal” surveillance technologies, and when multiple, wireless, and remote radiation and neuro-technologies are being developed?

What must also be doubly, triply, and continually underlined is: The allegations currently being brought forward are in fact allegations of torture, no less horrifying than the CIA’s torture of “Enhanced Interrogation” at Guantanamo. Shouldn’t our Public Health guardians be doubly, triply, and continually concerned then, about such allegations? Shouldn’t a mechanism exist in our society, to prevent and to stop such an overwhelming violation of basic human rights?

Intensive Concern about Informed Consent in Written Comments from Stated Victims of Ongoing Covert Non-Consensual Experimentation

A small cross-section from notes is presented here, of excerpted public comments from people describing themselves as victims or as related to victims of non-consensual experimentation, including possible victims, pointing to high concern among this group regarding the proposed exclusions for Intelligence Surveillance and Criminal Justice, and adding heft to the comments presented by activists at the meeting. The document linked here, Victim Stakeholder Summary Featuring Victim or TI Comments, offers a more comprehensive view, with notes from all victim comments, and comment numbers, for ease of look-up on Regulations.gov. For complete comments, please look online there, at Regulations.gov.

Also of note: These comments were not alluded to in the Executive Summary presented at the SACHRP meeting, but very clearly, in this day of increasing wireless/remote-control technologies, the fact that a cross-section of citizens would step forward to describe covert remote experimentation with measurable pulses of radiation on their persons should be infinite cause for alarm in any educated civil society.

As such, the unique recommendations these individuals make to change the language of the regulation—coming as it does from outside the “research community” of scientists and strategists writing this language, and representing the larger public most likely to be affected by this language—should be considered critically important.

Phyllis Cherubini (spouse of victim):

“Under Section 2.1 (Explicit Exclusion of Six Categories of Research Deemed Not Research), three items are troubling. These items relate to Criminal Justice Activities, Public Health Surveillance, and Intelligence Surveillance.

First of all, wording of Section 2.1 seems contradictory: research that is not deemed research. In reality, just because the knowledge gained from research from an entity like DARPA is classified, it is still research.

Second, the criminal justice system, the intelligence community (including the Department of Defense), and the public health community have a verifiable history of nonconsensual research:

To suggest that these groups are not currently involved in research that could endanger the lives of unsuspecting human subjects begs the question.

We know, for example, that the CIA is currently involved in research on humans in the United States from a November 15, 2011, letter sent by V. Sue Bromley, Associate Deputy Director of the CIA, to Amy Gutman, Chair of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (reported in their Moral Science Report). (And covered above.)

Like other exempt organizations under the surveillance umbrella, this group should be held accountable. Disregard for human subject input concerning participation in a research project is criminal, not beneficent or just.” Phyllis Cherubini, Public Comment, NPRM

Linda Kmiotek:

The sixth category of excluded activities that will not be considered research involves surveys, interviews, surveillance activities and related analysis…” It seems as though the Bioethics Team is being asked to not call it research, thereby exempting persons from the Rule of Law as it exists today. I would like to put my two cents worth in and disagree and say that as I have no attorney, don’t have much time to read through all of the language, that justice and ethics are simple, and that those who have the power to inject more language into laws are only trying to muddy things.

May I please end this plea by saying that the attitude of blind pursuit: the worship of curiosity and building new weapons damn the consequences must end. All of Earth’s inhabitants may suffer as a result of mankind’s inventions.” Linda Kmiotek, Public Comment, NPRM

Barbara Guillette:

“We need to broaden the definition of research to mean an investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation. We need to broaden the definition of research subject to regulation to include all research. State and local entities should comply with the Common Rule particularly when public benefit or service programs involve research on human beings.

All federal and non-federal entities should be mandated to comply explicitly with the Common Rule.

I recommend dropping the term “both physical” from the definition of Intervention to reflect remote intervention.

The testing, use and abuse and manipulation of directed energy weapons against the people is callously destroying productive lives.

Why would they want to lower standards on using humans as research subjects? Need loopholes for Brain Initiative, Precision Medicine Initiative? – these programs will be using human subjects for testing. Objects – they are using human subjects for testing now.” Barbara Guillette, Public Comment, NPRM

Anonymous Anonymous:

In summary, your proposal ~ if it would become a final rule would cause the HHS to define persons as non-human, or to not recognize individuals as human persons with rights, when they are being subjected to “Intelligence Surveillance Activities” as defined by the proposed rule.

Shut down this proposal immediately. There should be no attempt to exclude people from having the protections extended by the Constitution or those which are commonly understood human rights. Anonymous Anonymous, Public Comment, NPRM

Steven White:

MK ULTRA

Steven White, Public Comment, NPRM: “a picture of me in stilwater, OK 1969 summer camp”

Steven White, who notes that he has been a victim for over 45 years, attached the photograph here, and states that he is the famous MK ULTRA boy (from this widely-known photograph, with sign “Strain All Urine”, notated “Unidentified white female between the ages of 8 and 10 yrs old.”). Directing readers to Marshall Thomas’ book, Monarch: The New Phoenix Program, he details a horrific experience of abuse along with other children, describing how people running the Phoenix program in Oklahoma went on to occupy positions of authority in Texas. He also says he was instrumental–as a child non-consensually exploited in experimentation–in the development of the M.I.N.D (Magnetic Integrated Neuron Duplicator) computer, which he says was “in use at prisons across the country (and is being used) still today”, and which was also featured in a lawsuit by San Quentin prisoner John Ginter (about his electromagnetic mind targeting in 1967), and gave Cheryl Welsh the name Mindjustice.org for her website:

“The FOIA picture is wrongly listed as taken in 1961 when it was taken summer of 1969 in Stillwater, Oklahoma, in the children’s away-from-parents summer camp that was 1 + weeks long AGAIN. We were kidnapped, gassed, all of us were 5 years of age or under and we were raped every day in the semi truck trailers this picture was taken in….That is me and I am a BOY like I told the man taking the picture.

…(W)e are denied the right to live, freedom, justice and the American way, as well as a family.

…I also built the M.I.N.D. computer 1963-1968 in Tulsa Okla at a hospital lab I was left at for months at a time as a newborn to 5 year old…You must stop all testing on all humans including those in jail.” Steven White, Public Comment, NPRM

Diane Shomaker:

“Over fifty years after Project MKULTRA officially ended and 40 years after the Church Committee reported that the CIA and DOD conducted experiments on unwitting human beings, many US citizens and others are continuing to report they are victims of classified research including weapons testing. Many testified before the Bioethics Commission in 2011.

“…I’ve been a victim of electronic weapons for over 2 years. I have heard hundreds of other victims stories that are very similar to mine. I’m close to becoming crippled from being repeatedly attacked with these weapons. Cancer may be on it’s way or maybe I have it now from the constant radiation. I have spent over $8,000 on doctors & shielding. I have proof from doctors & licensed private detectives of these frequencies from weapons used on me.

Please help us end this slow, silent mass murder & get the weapons out of the hands of criminals.” Diane Shomaker, Public Comment, NPRM

Bella D:

“The United States is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and HAS ASSURED THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY THAT NON-CONSENSUAL RESEARCH IS BARRED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS BY THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS. This is an opportunity to increase the protections for human subjects and enforce explicit existing laws governing human research under the ICCPR and the US Constitution. That is, absolute informed consent for all human experimentation and research, including and especially that which is deemed classified.” Bella D, Public Comment, NPRM

Eduardo Colon questions why the rule-making proposes excluding Defense Surveillance activities:

“I see this FR as an irony, as the Defense Department is seeking yet more control in extending what they can and cannot do in their involvement of human experimentation. This FR simply gives them greater legal means to justify non-consensual human experimentation, and considering the severe circumstances of thousands like myself, this current experiment includes torture.

I ask to look into the real purpose of this FR revision, to look at past human experimentation programs conducted by the DOD/CIA, and question why would this FR exclude human research protections based on defense surveillance activities…”

Exclusion (is being) used as a legal means to justify non-consensual human experimentation.” Eduardo Colon, Public Comment, NPRM

Jaami Ali:

“Priorities should be made to establish parity in education, housing, food, environment, job creation for all Americans so that people will not have barriers to self actualization. As major disparities do exist all over this country, misplaced anger and NAZI agendas are flourishing like wild flowers; as a result deals are being made with the US intelligence and military to apply covert tools of human experimentation on self-actualized women of color, such as myself.” Jaami Ali, Public Comment, NPRM

Christopher Knall:

In short, the use of mood, thought, and behavior altering devices on nonconsenting human beings is slavery, a violation of the most basic human right and the 14th Amendment. There are multiple examples where odd behavior of people who made the news may have been subjected to this or other methods more closely related to the old MKULTRA, MKOFTEN, DORMOUSE and other drug-related programs conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency during the Cold War.”

“Not only has the US Government failed to rein in the worst of human experimentation, but the methods and means that were once in the experimental phase have been used actively to curb rights in violation of several statutes including most notably Conspiracy Against Rights where, for example, directed energy weapons have been used for political purposes.

“See Donald Friedman’s FOIA. Mood, thought and behavior altering devices on non-consenting humans beings is a violation of 14th amendment. In other words, the use of these means and methods are themselves a National Security threat.

“Stating that the purposes are not for experimentation does not make the actions of agencies and private contractors any less experimental. We need to open the books on these practices AGAIN.” Christopher Knall, Public Comment, NPRM

Debra Poulsen stated that she spoke at the 2011 Bioethics Commission meeting in Washington, DC, yet was ignored:

But I don’t know what saddens me most: That there are still people doing unethical research in our Country, or that there are still U.S. citizens who will participate in this disgusting program against their fellow man.

Please do something at this point for all persons in unethical, unwilling experimentation programs. We are out there. We are speaking out. We are now asking again – please hear us. Debra Poulsen, Public Comment, NPRM

Margaret Zawodniak, in a 10-page comment with links and citations which can be found here, made reference to the recently-exposed collusion of the APA with CIA/DOD, and discussed, along with others (in a common comment), the findings of the Church Committee, regarding the historic collusion of the APA and many universities in MK ULTRA projects:

Recently, the American Psychological Association (APA) was found to have colluded with the CIA and the DOD to weaken the association’s ethical guidelines and allow psychologists to participate in the government’s “enhanced” interrogation programs post-911. The APA also had Top Secret clearance during Project MKULTRA, which was brought to public attention in 1975 by the Church Committee.

“Past abuses of unethical and non-consensual experimentation by U.S. military and intelligence agencies include behavior control Projects CHATTER, BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE, MKULTRA, MKSEARCH, MKNAOMI and others. They were often interwoven with radiation experiments and research on chemical and biological weapons. U.S. defense and intelligence agencies funded the research with a broad network of academic institutions such as Stanford, Cornell, Princeton, and John Hopkins; pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lily; medical schools and hospitals; the American Psychological Association; the National Institutes of Health, the Veterans Administration Center, the U.S. Public Health Service and others.”

Reporting Church Committee findings, as well as the “Clinton Memo,” she recommended, for the Intelligence Surveillance exclusion:

…(Since) The ANPRM did not propose or discuss this exclusion …I recommend extending the comment period for this exclusion and implementing an Interim Final Rule which requires informed consent with no waiver or exceptions possible for all current and future classified human research, and Rulemaking.”

Regarding the Criminal Justice exclusion, she wrote:

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). In 2011, the November Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program (JNLWP) Newsletter included a statement from a senior Scientist at the Directed Energy Research Programs National Institute of Justice, that for more than 10 years, the NIJ and the JNLWP have shared research and expertise in developing and evaluating new less-lethal technology.

The worldwide nonlethal weapons market is expected to double by 2020 from 2013, according to a 2014 report by Dan Inbar, chairman and chief technology officer of Homeland Security Research Corp. He said the U.S. market is expected to follow that trend, increasing from $500 million in 2013 to about $930 million in 2020.

Because the DOJ is involved in the Non-Lethal Weapons Program; and because they have engaged in non-lethal weapons research; and because the non-lethal weapons market is expected to double from 2013 to 2020; and because many are reporting they are victims of classified research including weapons testing, criminal justice activities should be subjected to oversight, particularly classified research.”

The Common Rule should be written in such a manner that explicit exclusions are not necessary and should be avoided, particularly surveillance and criminal justice activities.” Margaret Zawodniak, Public Comment, NPRM

She also noted, regarding Precision Medicine:

DNA and blood can act as antennas because both are based on crystalline forms. If President Obama’s Precision Initiative uses a person’s DNA or blood to guide Directed Energy toward them, they will be using this technology for torture and killing instead of for anyone’s benefit. Secret technology is already being used against Americans. See CitizensAHT.org. People are being tortured and killed with electromagnetic weapons of all kinds. You have the power to protect as well as torture and kill. DO YOUR DUTY TO PROTECT HUMANS!” Margaret Zawodniak, Public Comment, NPRM

In an additional comment, she included a screenshot from Facebook of Dr. Hall’s testimony to the Bioethics Commission in Washington DC March 2011 (included below). (Some of her references and links are reproduced in the Related links section at end.)

dr_halls_transcript

Dr. Hall’s Testimony/Presidential Bioethics Commission, March 2011

Linda Costanzo:

“Many Americans are being hit with destructive frequencies that are causing diseases. Please investigate Directed Energy Weapons and what they are able to do to humans and animals. You need to help protect the citizens of this country. Radiation has been closely linked with cancer and we need protection.” Linda Costanzo, Public Comment, NPRM

Wayne DeBlaker, Sr.:

“The FBI are using the laws and rules of classified research to justify their treatment of suspects during investigations. The FBI Behavioral Sciences website states the FBI conducts research on criminals to learn about crime and its motives and environments.” Wayne DeBlaker, Sr., Public Comment, NPRM

Roger German:

“DO NOT lower standards on using humans as research subjects. Obama’s Brain Initiative, Precision Medicine Initiative – will require loopholes in human research rules – will be using human subjects. DNA as a Fractal Antenna – if Precision Initiative uses a person’s DNA or blood to guide Directed Energy toward them, they will be using this technology for torture and killing instead of for anyone’s benefit. I oppose relaxing of the rules; I would like to see rules strengthened for protection to human subjects and protection against crimes against humanity.” Roger German, Public Comment, NPRM

Ricardo Lopez:

“Will they own our bodies, DNA, too?

Re. Rebecca Skloot: Your Cells. Their Research. Your Permission? – DNA: I think, there are very important points that aren’t addressed either by the NY Times or this article. In fact, there is an underlying metaphor in that NY Times article about our cellphones doubling as our surveillance bracelets we even pay for, that is not being well exploited.

As we all know well, anything that the MIC (military industrial complex), politicians and police can mess with, they will ultimately use to abuse people. As part of the so-called patriot act, the U.S. government has access to all our medical records. Now, how exactly do our medical records relate to our individual civil and moral convictions?

Medical professionals such as APA members offer their scientific expertise to CIA / FBI and are engaging in torturing innocent people even though torture is illegal.

One’s individual’s right to bodily integrity is already a human right. Nowadays, we live under 24×7 surveillance, will they also own our bodies, DNA?

At the very least, consent will raise those issues to people’s consciousness.” Ricardo Lopez, Public Comment, NPRM

Karen Archer, who notes that she is the moderator of approximately 4,000-5,000 people reporting enough similar symptoms, and who have enough supporting documentation to be convincing that they are non-consensual human experimentees:

“(The experimentation is) effected with such energies as radar, microwave fields; (evidence/symptoms include) laser-like/other burns, bruises, surgical looking incision sites, blunt force trauma leaving bruises and broken capillaries and tissues, loss of control of different parts of their bodies, and some people have voices in their heads while others have a non-stop tinnitis.

This group has been in existence for ten years now and has grown exponentially since I found it in 2013 when I started experiencing unexplainable burns on my face—the group is an average, sane, non-violent, random sampling of population.

This is senseless torture. Please put safeguards in place to prevent the further spread of this horrific situation and to protect our children and grandchildren who could also someday be affected by these apparently covert or hijacked technologies.” Karen Archer, Public Comment, NPRM

Michael Yazdian who notes he is a Certified Public Accountant, attached a letter from Representative Jim Guest about electronic torture (imaged below), and stated he has an online petition site with over 2,700 signatures:”Ban Electronic Warfare on Civilians”, where he has compiled lists of websites reporting non-consensual experimentation, Directed-Energy Weapons, and electronic torture, and where he writes:

“These unconscionable travesties are the ultimate crimes against humanity and we are all at risk. Please address the outcries of all survivors in ending all forms of electronic genocide and menticide. We are pleading for your help to be unleashed from these atrocious Psychotronic shackles. Please do not allow secrecy to enslave civility.” Michael Yazdian, Ban Electronic Warfare on Civilians

 

jimguest12

Norman Rabin, who submitted several supporting documents, including text of questions submitted at an earlier Dec 3-4, 2016 meeting (included below), and a compilation of public comments related to Intelligence Surveillance activities submitted to the ANRPM in 2011, mentioned, among other suggestions, the need for more public oversight of classified research:

“Contact office – for all classified human research, there shall exist an agency contact office. Even though informed consent under the Common Rule requires that the Human Subject be provided with contact information (for questions, or to report injury, or to withdraw from the research), human subjects of classified research should be afforded this extra safeguard, in the event that a person is subjected to classified human research without being provided with such information. All classified human research shall be registered at 1 or more offices from which the contact office shall be fully empowered to obtain at least as much contact information as is required by informed consent under the Common Rule.

Permanent records shall be kept for all classified human research. All records would be fully preserved until the human subject or legal survivor thereof is satisfied that justice has been obtained. Thereafter, detailed summary records of the human research shall be maintained for historical review, and governmental review, and for other Public purposes.”

4 Questions-for the SACHRP Meeting of December 3-4, 2015/Norman Rabin

Please excuse my having as many as 4 Specific Questions here, but the NPRM-subpart proposing to Exempt unspecified Intelligence Surveillance Activities seems to have been launched upon the Public with no prior mention or discussion of it whatsoever. Therefore, some specific answers from the Government are called for:

Question 1 of 4)

What was the motivation for the NPRM-subpart, which proposes to Exempt unspecified Intelligence Surveillance activities from the federal policy for Protection for Human Subjects? There were both: no Public Comments requesting such an Exemption in the Preliminary Rulemaking in 2011; and, there was no Public Discussion – enlighten us if I missed something – there was no Public Discussion of an Intelligence Surveillance Activities exemption at any of the SACHRP meetings since the 2011 Preliminary Rulemaking?

Where was there any prior Public Discussion of this? What’s the specific motivation for it being proposed?

Question 2 of 4)

Why is the Proposed Exemption so broad? [When spoken, I added: “It could have been specific and limited, but its not.”] It seems crafted to allow U.S. Intelligence to perform Non-Consensual Human Experimentation related to research into new Surveillance Technologies and/or methods? Human Research is research. And, purposeful U.S. Intelligence Surveillance activities within the U.S. are related to serious law enforcement purposes (including Counter Intelligence activities). By definition, Human Research is conducted for Human Research purposes.

Isn’t it obvious that the proposed exemption looks like U.S. Government approval of Non-Consensual Human Experimentation, for Research which studies or which develop Intelligence Surveillance Technologies and/or methods?

Question 3 of 4)

There’s already a known loophole in the federal Policy, so why is this exemption needed? As surely as President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, and as surely as the ACHRE [Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments] had many Legal Experts on their Committee and on their Staff, and as surely as they strongly Recommended that a known Existing Loophole allowing Non-Consensual Classified Human Experimentation be closed – remember the March 1997 Policy Change attempt by President Clinton, entitled: “Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research”. As surely as those facts, there is a known loophole which to this day still allows and encourages Non-Consensual Classified Human Experimentation.

So, my third question is: Why is the proposed Exemption needed if there’s already a Known Loophole? Currently, an Agency or Department head must approve a partial waiver or a total waiver of the Policy for Protection of Human Subjects. And, for Classified Human Research in particular, the Notice of Waiver is not required to be disclosed to the Public, such as in the Federal Register, because that would be an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

So why is the proposed Exemption needed? The existing Loophole already allows them to waive the Policy, if they are able to obtain a waiver from the Department or Agency head.

Why does the NPRM-subpart want to take away the accountability and responsibility of the Agency or Department head, and of the authors of the Application for Waiver, and replace it with an Exemption, and license [encouragement], to disregard the Policy for Protection of Human Subjects, and the Ethics related to it?

Question 4 of 4)

Why did the Rulemaking authors ignore the 15 – 20 Public Comments to the ANPRM, Preliminary Rulemaking, in 2011, which exhibited 50’s [“fifties], or a few hundred, named alleged victims of Ongoing Non-Consensual Surveillance Technology related Human Experimentation?

And, Why did the Rulemaking authors ignore President Clinton’s prior Policy Change attempt, which sought to properly regulate all Classified Human Research, which includes ‘Intelligence Surveillance Related Classified Research’? Norman Rabin, Public Comment, NPRM

Julie Ponder who notes that she is a parolee, states that she is a 15-year victim abused with electronic surveillance by the Department of Corrections and State Intelligence in both Colorado and California:

“I am opposed to passing proposed Common Rule; (it would) make human torture legal.

I am against non-consensual experimentation – informed consent should be required.

I am against human surveillance with psychotronic weapons for experimental purposes; (it inflicts) physical torture, mind control, mind reading, v2k, burn, rape etc – remotely.

It is my understanding that the invention and original uses of these electronic surveillance technologies were for military purposes and national security against terrorism. Now it is being abused in the USA on mental health patients, prisoners being incarcerated, whistle blowers, high profile criminal cases, and your average citizen.

It is being used by the Department of Corrections, State Intelligence, the military, NSA, CIA, and more. It is out of control.

These agencies are abusing each other with (these) technologies, abusing USA citizens, and people in other countries. The legislature should be making laws outlawing the use of surveillance technologies and human experimentation, not making conditions for its use. This is my comment.” Julie Ponder, Public Comment, NPRM

Tyrone Dew who attached Dr. Duncan’s The Executive Summary: Neuropsychological and Electronic No-Touch Torture Report – Numerated Torture Methods for Interrogation and Behavior Modification – A comparison between physical and no-touch torture tactics:

“Mass shooters Aaron Alexis and Myron May are victims of Directed Energy attacks. Credible sources are exposing Direct Energy Non-consensual experimentation.” Tyrone Dew, Public Comment, NPRM

Melanie Garton included an excerpt sourced from https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule156 and stated that the (non-consensual human experimentation she has experienced) were war crimes, violations of humanitarian law. She experiences spying, gang stalking –it leaves her incapacitated.

“(This is) inhumane and psychological murder and torture of innocent people.” Melanie Garton, Public Comment, NPRM

Todd Giffen who identified himself as a 8-year victim, included several attachments and links (some included in Resources at end), inclusive of letter text from Dr. Duncan and letter text from Dr. Duncan to Dr. Farber, as well as letters of support, evaluations, and Dr. Duncan’s No-Touch Torture report:

“Government, corporations, private, public entities, law enforcement, hospitals and college universities, military and foreign countries should be barred from touching humans or animals for any purpose.

I myself have had satellite/over horizon radar interferometry/electronic warfare used to irradiate and blast my body to a pulp/beam audio and images into my brain now for 8 years and there are thousands of complainants.

This is a violation of Kyllo v United States and the 4th amendment. In Eugene, Oregon, the Navy was even publicly exposed as irradiating citizens.” Todd Giffen, Public Comment, NPRM

(Please note, this is only a representative sampling. There are many other necessary, thought-provoking, and incisive comments from people claiming subjection to non-consensual experimentation that the public should read: please visit the links above for the Summary of Victim Comments.)

Informed Consent in Classified Research: Special Mention of the Clinton Memo

Of special relevance: Several commenters mentioned the 1997 Clinton Administrative Order categorically disallowing waivers of Informed Consent in classified research. Linda Kmiotek, in a written comment, identifying herself as a victim of undisclosed, possibly Classified Research experimentation, reminded the Committee of previous Federal attempts to strengthen human subject protections in classified research:

In October 1995, the Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments recommended “The adoption of Federal Policy requiring the informed consent of all human subjects of classified research and the requirement not be subject to exemption or waiver. Whereby in March 27, 1997, President Clinton issued an Administrative Order, Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research” [Federal Register, May 13, 1997, pp.26367-26372] For 18 years since that attempted rule making, an NPRM supposedly was never completed. Without hesitation, this Federal Policy should be implemented. We need more protections not less.” Linda Kmiotek, Public Comment, NPRM

Karla Smith, in her joint public comment for herself and Norman Rabin at SACHRP noted the Department of Energy’s recent intent to keep to the requirements for Informed Consent in the Clinton Memo, where legal counsel at the DOE stated the Memo still had legal effect:

“A recent legal opinion in 2015, obtained by the legal counsel of the U.S. Department of Energy, stated that the 1997 Clinton Memo still had legal effect. Earlier this year the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced its intent to adopt such a regulation with minor adjustments…

doeKarla2

Karla Smith/Public Comment, NPRM, May 19/Presenting DOE’s compliance with the Clinton Memo

On January 21, 2016 the DOE approved Notice 443.1 which states that supplemental requirements and responsibilities for classified human subjects research (HSR) are necessary to ensure compliance with Presidential Memorandum, Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research, dated March 27, 1997, commonly referred to as the “Clinton Memo,” which the DOE and NNSA Offices of General Counsel determined is in effect and applicable to DOE.

“Requirement 4.a.3 states “No waiver of informed consent will be granted.

“It is our hope that OHRP and HHS will take the initiative for other government agencies which comply with the Common Rule and follow the Department of Energy’s lead, and find that supplemental requirements and protections and responsibilities for classified human subjects research are necessary to ensure compliance with the Clinton Memo, and to fulfill the legal requirements and spirit of federal rulemaking.”

In Conclusion: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. (Nuremberg Code)

Rebecca Skloot, in her December 2015 op-ed in the New York Times on the issue of consent in the case of remaindered biospecimens, an issue that was indeed discussed by SACHRP–in contrast to the Intelligence Surveillance exclusions, which was not—quoted from an optimistic researcher possibly dizzy from Federal funding, who sought to call human subjects “participants in research,” which appears to be a fashionable term today in the research community, and pointed out that Consent is the only way any human can be said to “participate” in research:

In announcing plans for the $215 million Precision Medicine Initiative, which he sees as a model for other future research, Dr. Collins said, “Participants will be partners in research, not subjects.” But people can be partners only if they know they’re participating.” Rebecca Skloot: Your Cells. Their Research. Your Permission?

Alexandra Franco, JD: “Researchers are not entitled to conduct research; research is a privilege.”

This comment by Alexandra Franco, J.D. (2015, Institute for Science, Law and Technology [of] the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Chicago-Kent College of Law), draws our attention once more to the Nuremberg Code, and questions the very nature of research that uses human subjects.

The rule of informed consent, its underlying principle of respecting people’s autonomous decision-making power and right to refuse to participate in research come from the troubled past of human subject experimentation of which the Nazi experiments are one of its most harrowing episodes.

“In fact, the Common Rule derives its principles from the Nuremberg Code, which resulted from the Nuremberg Trials. The Nuremberg Code states from the get-go: “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”

“It is not hard to understand why it would be; the Nazi experiments were forcibly performed on subjects who did not have any ability to escape the atrocities that were being done to them in the name of research.

“The Nuremberg Trials that followed the end of the Nazi Holocaust set in writing what the essential elements of ethical research should be to prevent such atrocities from happening again.

“… While the Common Rule is denounced as “cumbersome and outdated” in light of the changes in research technology, we must take into consideration that the same flaws in human nature which prompted the creation of the Nuremberg Code remain unchanged.

“Therefore, the public’s desire for control over their own body as well as the data and samples deriving therefrom, should be the departing point of any changes to the Common Rule.

“People should be able to give full informed consent before researchers can use their data or biological samples for research purposes.

“Researchers are not entitled to conduct research; research is a privilege which the medical and scientific community enjoys as a result of people’s desire to willingly, intentionally and knowingly, give a little part of themselves for the betterment of mankind.” Alexandra Franco, J.D., Public Comment, NPRM

Anonymous Anonymous: “Nothing to do with National Security but a lot to do with Torture—and Torture is Unconstitutional”

To close, this comment by Anonymous Anonymous reminds us why the United States of America, which often decries the records of other countries in their violations of human rights, should care about Informed Consent, and why the Common Rule should not exclude Intelligence or military agencies or the DOJ from requiring Informed Consent:

“The Common Rule has to be based on the Constitution which is the blueprint of our democracy.

“No government agency or department should have the right to waive applicability of all or part of the Common Rule (including Informed Consent). The arbitrary use of such technologies has nothing to do with national security but a lot to do with torture, and torture is unconstitutional.

“It is necessary to send a strong message that our Constitution and human rights matter in America. Otherwise America is no better than China and other countries that America criticizes for not enforcing human rights.” Anonymous Anonymous, Public Comment, NPRM

Classified Research Continually Funded Although Public Continually Reports Inhumane Experimentation

We are experiencing a silent crisis of the Constitution and our basic human rights in the US today.

KarlaSubdural1

Karla Smith, Public Comment, May 19, 2016/Speaking about subdural neuro-implants

Karla Smith notes in a separate comment,”Congress provides billions of dollars in funding to intelligence and defense entities which fund classified research.”

When people are coming forward to report barbaric experimentation on their bodies while such “covered” research is being funded, it is time to openly challenge all aspects of such funding and research, hold the “covered entities” fully accountable, and reinstate basic protections for all citizens by fully requiring Informed Consent in all research, by all agencies and organizations, for whatever purpose, and reinstate the lost protections of the Nuremberg Code in our midst.

That is the message these public comments overwhelmingly convey.

Please take the time to watch the video coverage of the powerful and historic testimony given at SACHRP, and to read further all comments about non-consensual experimentation posted. Our future as a nation with a sense of decency, humanity, and moral principles relies ultimately on our own individual humanity, and how we each choose to respond to the devastating testimony of modern-day non-consensual human experimentation contained herein.

RELATED:

SACHRP Testimony

NIH/Video of SACHRP May 18 Meeting/Public Comments Towards End, start 6:21:15

NIH/Video of SACHRP May 19 Meeting/Public Comments Towards End, start 2:59:29

Dec 3 and Dec 4, 2015 SACHRP Meetings. Public Comments Toward End.

Oct 21 and Oct 22, 2015 SACHRP Meetings. Public Comments Toward End.

Supplemental Information: Non-Consensual Experimentation Victims Stakeholder Summary, Comments on NPRM/SACHRP

President’s Bioethics Commission Testimony/Reports

Presidential Bioethics Commission, edited to 30 minutes. Youtube video, Church Committee 2.0 Production, 2011.

Bioethics Commisssion Failed Obama’s Mandate in New Report. Cheryl Walsh/The Daily Censored, January 2012

Moral Science/Protecting Participants in Human Subjects Research. June 2012. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

The American Public Informs President Obama’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues About Ongoing Non-Consensual Human Experimentation in the USA Today. Ramola D, Washington’s Blog, March 12, 2016

Outlaw Nonconsensual Human Experiments Now –– Cheryl Walsh/Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

FURTHER RESOURCES:

Congress-Related, Public Meeting-Related:

President Clinton’s Memorandum of March 27, 1997–Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research. Federation of American Scientists.

Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), Final Report Recommendations.

Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, Public Meeting, Tuesday, July 5, 1994, Presentation by Jay Katz.

Church Committee Reports: Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) Public Library (Extensive online documentary archive on political assassinations, covert activities, and covert agencies)

Church Committee Report Book I: Foreign and Military Intelligence

Church Committee Report Book II: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans

Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States, Report to the President (Rockefeller Commission Report), (Washington, U.S. GPO, June 1975). Ford Library Museum.

[Also: Rockefeller Commission Report, with separate pdfs of Chapters and Summaries, at the AARC.]

Gerald Ford White House Altered Rockefeller Commission Report in 1975; Removed Section on CIA Assassination Plots/White House Aide Dick Cheney Spearheaded Editing of Report to Dampen Impact/New Documents Cast Further Doubt on Commission’s Investigation, Independence. National Security Archive, February 29, 2016.

Access to Justice? Does DOJ’s Office of Inspector General Have Access to Information Needed to Conduct Proper Oversight?, hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, September 9. Federation of American Scientists/Government Secrecy.

DoD-Related

New DoD Directive on Detainees Allows Sleep and Sensory Deprivation, Biometric IDs,” Invictus, September 17, 2014.

Department of Defense. Bioeffects of Selected Non-Lethal Weapons. (Obtained on FOIA request by Donald Friedman, Dec 13, 2006.)

Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5240.1-R, Procedures Governing the Activities of DoD Intelligence Components that Affect United States Persons.

Department of Defense Instruction/Protection of Human Subjects and Adherence to Ethical Standards in DoD-Supported Research. Department of Defense, November 8, 2011

Nonlethal Technologies Become Lighter, More Potent, National Defense Industrial Association. National Defense Magazine, July 2014.

Microwave Harassment and Mind Control Experimentation-Julianne McKinney, Director, Electronic Surveillance Project, Dec 1992

Department of Defense Directive (DoD) 5525.5: DoD Co-operation with Local Civilian Law Enforcement Officials

Department of Defense Directive (DoD) 3025.18: Defense Support of Local Authorities

Joint Chiefs of Staff. Joint Publication 3-60, Joint Doctrine for Targeting, 31 January 2013 .

Targeting. June 2006 United States Air Force. Supplements Joint Doctrine for Targeting 2002.

Electronic Warfare in Operations. FM 3-36. Department of the Army.

Radio Frequency Radiation Dosimetry Handbook. Carl Durney, PhD, Electrical Engineering Department, University of Utah. October, 1986.

CIA-Related

Dainius Puras and Juan E. Méndez, Letter to the U.S. Government, January 15, 2015, “Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Jeffrey Kaye, “SSCI Report Reveals CIA Torture Program Originated in Same Department as MKULTRA,” The Dissenter (now Shadowproof), December 11, 2014.

Global Alert by Alex Constantine, 1995. Hearing “Voices” The Hidden History of the CIA’s Electromagnetic Mind-Control Experiments

FBI gets a broader role in coordinating domestic intelligence activities. Washington Post, June 19, 2012

The CIA – at Home. Excerpted from the book, The Lawless State/The Crimes of the U.S. Intelligence Agencies, by Morton Halperin, Jerry Berman, Robert Borosage, Christine Marwick. Penguin Books, 1976

CIA Document: AR 2-2 Law and Policy Governing the Conduct of Intel Activities. (Obtained on FOIA lawsuit by ACLU and Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, June 2015.)

New Docs Raise Questions About CIA Spying Here at Home. Ashley Gorski, Staff Attorney, ACLU National Security Project, June 15, 2015.

More About Intelligence Agencies (CIA/DNI) Spying. ACLU.

Colin A.Ross, The CIA Doctors: Human Rights Violations by American Psychiatrists. Manitou Communications, 2006.

Research-Related

Gerald S. Schatz, Are the Rationale and Regulatory System for Protecting Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research Obsolete and Unworkable, or Ethically Important but Inconvenient and Inadequately Enforced? Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, Volume 20, Issue 1, 2003.

DNA is a Fractal Antenna, International Journal of Radiation Biology, 2011, April. Epub 2011, Feb 28.

Ortaine Devian’s comment on the ACLU article, Who’s Afraid of the Torture Report? (Links to various resources on Military Mind Control & Tesla Research, Radionics/Sonics, Government Secrecy.)

Robert Duncan, Regarding 6/10 NYT Article on Gang-Stalking & Targeted Individuals: “When Weapons Are “Field Tested” They Need To Be Very Secretive”

Dr. Robert Duncan: The Executive Summary: Neuropsychological and Electronic No-Touch Torture Report

Robert Duncan, The Matrix Deciphered. 2006.

Robert Duncan, Project Soulcatcher, Secrets of Cyber and Cybernetic Warfare Revealed, 2010.

The Invisible Third World War by W.H. Bowart and Richard Sutton. Posted online at Whale.to. 27.9.1990.

***

Ramola D is a writer and independent journalist with a background in science and literature researching issues in science, technology, and ethics relevant to our times, including issues related to Intelligence, Surveillance, Security, and Defense. She runs the solutions journalism site at The Everyday Concerned Citizen, and edits the online literary quarterly, Delphi Quarterly. Her literary journalism, fiction, and poetry have been published widely, more on this at her website. Please follow her online at @EccEveryday, or on Facebook.

This article may be reproduced in full with attribution and linkback. Please share widely.

Dr. Robert Duncan: The Executive Summary: Neuropsychological and Electronic No-Touch Torture Report

(Article re-posted with thanks to Todd Giffen and the site drrobertduncan.com.)

neuroI just recently came across this article on aspects of the Senate Torture Report, posted with a release date 4/2015, and read it with quite some interest as it seems to openly discuss the phenomenon of “No-Touch Torture” or covert remote-control electromagnetic torture of private individuals in once-free Western societies as an acknowledged CIA pursuit. The information it offers from the CIA point of view seems to suggest some of the CIA rationales and unspoken subtext and context for this program of torture, and gives hints as to what exactly is being intended and accomplished (covert detention without due process via electronic incarceration, covert “interrogation” via brainwave acquisition and modulation, covert “monitoring” via radio signalling to implanted devices) by this completely pathological and insane and absolutely inhumane program targeting thousands of individuals worldwide.

It would seem therefore, reading this report, that the entire phenomenon of “Targeted Individuals” being hit with electromagnetic and other directed-energy weapons is a CIA set-up, ostensibly to test more of their “enhanced” interrogation techniques on unsuspecting “detainees”–ordinary people in the US and elsewhere, who, much like the many innocent prisoners of Guantanamo who were picked up in Yemen and other places and have absolutely no connections to terrorism yet are being detained indefinitely without charges and tortured while in custody, are being “detained indefinitely,”and being “interrogated,” and being “tortured for purposes of interrogation”–only rather exotically, with energy weapons and implants which peer into brains and body parts, constantly track EMF emissions, and attack continuously and covertly with EMF signals on bodies and brains which are translated inside brains also as images, moods, feelings, sensations, dreams, and audio commands. Experimentation on human brains and nervous systems with energy weapons.

This is supremely disturbing, and an issue that needs to be tackled openly and publicly with the CIA. As noted elsewhere on this site, this is blatant human experimentation, that is being permitted covertly behind the scenes by our government under “classified” and “state secret” covers using “national security” as password for absolute abuse. (It’s not called Torture for nothing.)  

robduncanDr. Robert Duncan does a fine job detailing the ins and outs of this Torture, but refrains from disclosing details on the technologies involved, which, he notes, are still classified as “state secrets”– although “leaked” by thousands who have experienced these assaults (whom he also notes are frequently discredited as being mentally ill). Torture technologies, classified as state secrets–I feel it’s important to emphasize this; our sleeping American masses need to know this. We cannot exist as a free society when we have Torture technologies classified as state secrets! We Need open discussion–and open condemnation and termination–of these technologies!

Dr. Robert Duncan, of course, is the now-rather-well-known CIA researcher soulcand computer scientist who has written several books and given many public interviews on radio and video shows, including Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory, speaking candidly about his involvement in these mind control/uber-surveillance/nonconsensual experimentation programs which have been conducted unlawfully for decades on Americans and on citizens worldwide.

From the opener to his early work, The Matrix Deciphered: “My research interests have been neural networks, virtual reality, and EEG controlled robotics. Before graduate school I worked for the Department of Defense, Navy, NATO, and various intelligence agencies computer science projects. I have done business consulting and computer consulting for the largest companies in the world. I have been a professor, inventor, artist, and writer. I am one of the last Renaissance men.

My projects have included algorithms for Echelon and CIA natural language parsing and classification of document content, IRS formula for red flagging audits, writing the artificial intelligence code to automate tracking of the Soviet Nuclear Submarine Fleet and all water vessels, work integrating HAARP with SIGINT SIGCOM and SPAWAR. I have worked on projects for the Justice Department connecting local, state, and federal databases for the tracking of terrorists. I developed a system for the FBI to track license plates past toll booths and other locations. I worked on the soldier 2000 program to create body networks for reading vital signs and other information. A system I worked on called Snyper is operational in Iraq which triangulates on intercity conflict gun shots. I have been to a couple secret bases in the so called free world. I have developed telemedicine robotic surgery and virtual reality applications for the Army. For DARPA, I have worked on satellite computer vision target tracking applications and tank simulation as well as integration of the land, sea, and air surveillance systems like SOSSUS, towed arrays, and others.

Projects that I have worked on outside of government contracts include my thesis on computer generated holography, a project making paralyzed people walk again using choreographed stimulated muscles movements, face recognition, voice identification and recognition, finger print recognition, and neural network robotic controller. My research interests moved to enhanced reality heads up displays and wearable computing systems. My current research involves finding a cure for the mind control directed energy weapons fiasco. The integrated global surveillance grid is actually part of the holy grail of weapons and human control systems.”

(All emphases in red in the text posted below is mine.)

**************************************

The Executive Summary:
Neuropsychological and Electronic
No-Touch Torture Report


Based on “The Torture Memos” and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Declassified “Torture Report”

By Robert Duncan, A.B., S.M., M.B.A., Ph.D.

04/2015

Download: PDF, DOCX | Visit drrobertduncan.com.

Torture is a horrific topic and most minds will turn away from it because it can’t be comprehended that humans can be motivated, or computer programs can be run to do this to other sentient beings.  Just when we believed we were becoming more civilized as a culture, the technology for torture has advanced more than a hundred fold in recent decades.

This summary will get into ‘the minds of the dishonorable monsters’ of the psychology of torture. Those like Dick Cheney who helped authorize it under certain administrations and regimes of the U.S. government which have been proven to be criminal under U.S. law, treaties, and the International Criminal Court. There are many people involved in the conspiracy and cover-up including General Hayden.

The full report discloses the spectrum of techniques of interrogation and torture used by the U.S. and its allies. The United States government will officially deny the claims of this “no-touch torture report” but in time it will stand firm.

The technologies used are still classified as state secrets and will not be discussed in this summary. The torture methods have been leaked through thousands of American citizens who have survived the no-touch torture programs. The research and testimony has been accumulated since 2002 and merely used as examples but the names of the victims are withheld.

This report will not use skewed, misleading language such as “enhanced interrogation” to describe the torture techniques.

Why torture? The CIA claims it works. The assumption is that it works to gain actionable intelligence. Torture is often used for revenge, punishment, interrogation, and behavior modification.  In other terms torture is used to remove the continuity of thought to confuse the target to reveal information, erase brain patterns such as values and beliefs, or to break down the human spirit to make them submit and obey their handlers.

The downside of torture is that the countries that do it lose “moral soft power” in world politics. Without due process, over 25% of those reported in the Senate Torture Report were declared innocent. Blowback is always a repercussion of torture. Torture often takes a long time to affect the target from months to years.  Torture has shown to be unreliable except for getting false confessions and bad information but the U.S. and its allies are improving on their tactics and techniques.

The purpose of this report is to draw the parallels between physical torture techniques and no-touch torture methods used in secret by governments who possess the technologies that still go on today. This is a brief summary of offensive psychological and information warfare methods using traditional methods and modern cybernetic techniques while exploring hyper-game theory to walk the target to the desired path: leak intelligence, commit assassinations, or change beliefs.

Numerated Torture Methods for
Interrogation and Behavior Modification

(A comparison between physical and no-touch torture tactics)

  1. Induction of Depressive/Manic states

The idea is to shake up the emotional states of the target because different information can be accessed at each state.  Making the target feel despair and helplessness is the objective. This cycle of hope building and then breaking is done in many ways.  The techniques between the physical methods and the no-touch technological methods are similar. Speech is very important during this process of emotional manipulation. Such examples are, “We have imprisoned you without due processes or hope of it. You are indefinitely detained.” Hope building examples include, “Sorry. We have mistaken you for someone else. You will be compensated for false imprisonment and torture.”   The main difference between the cybernetic technology and physical is that emotional state clusters can be entrained into the target mind which speeds up the process. The communication is done differently but perceived as human speech. In the no-touch torture methods it is helpful if the target is labeled with mental illness that is being created for discrediting purposes so as not to draw human rights groups’ attention.

  1. Memory Erasure

The military and CIA have been researching memory erasing drugs for half a century.  The focus of this summary report is on interrogation. Memory erasure is an important technique during interrogation. It is used in combination with sleep deprivation.  There are many drugs that have been developed for physical memory erasure. One such interrogation method requires acquiring information from the target while on these drugs and recording the subject. After a sleeping cycle, the interrogator claims that the target has confessed. Of course the target remembers nothing of their conversation. The interrogator will play samples of the subject’s conversation back to them making the subject believe that the interrogator knows more than they do.  Similar techniques are used in the wireless, no-touch torture and interrogation programs. The cybernetic methods of memory erasure have additional purposes.  The memory erasure can be used on the cybernetic target to make the target believe people have broken in and moved their belongings. While physical black bag jobs do occur, it is a way to make the target more paranoid.

  1. Electricity and Shocks

Pain and fear of death are common tactics during interrogation. Shocking by electricity is a traditional method of torture and exposed in the CIA’s secret prisons.  Shocking the testicles and nipples are the most common due to their sensitivity. Interestingly, the thousand of interviews of no-touch torture involves “stings” and “shocks” to various parts of their bodies over long durations.

  1. Fear and Terror

There are many techniques to induce extreme fear in the target.  In physical renditions dogs, power drills, guns, insects, mutilation, blow torches, water boarding, suffocation, mock burials, and mock executions are just a few the United States government have used.  Remember that many targets of torture die from the physical effects. It is torture to death.
Let us compare the no-touch torture methods used to inflict the same terror and mental anguish.  In several of these techniques the target needs to hear their handler’s voice.  This report does not describe the technologies used to broadcast voices to the target at a distance. While the subject can be broadcast mental images to their mind using hypnosis and other suggestions as well as visual entrainments, the more invasive controls of the brain manipulation technologies can be used to entrained the brain’s autonomic nervous systems such as not breathing causing the target to not be able to sleep from fear of suffocation equivalent to water boarding. The neural linguistic programming can add fears such as heart attack, stroke, and cancer threats. Even motor cortex mapping can cause twitches in any part of the body. One example used a swift neck movement with a voice transmission, “We are trying to break your neck.” Directed energy effects such as Active Denial System can make the target feel that they are on fire indefinitely without the target dying from burns. Maximum pain and torture weapons have been evolving. Every drug effect can be artificially induced into the target mind including those of poisons.

  1. Imprisonment and Isolation

Isolation is commonly used as punishment in prisons. Many whistleblowers like Bradley Manning suffer this condition. In soft interrogation it is used to get the target to talk to their interrogator since humans have the need for companionship. In no-touch torture the target is driven from their friends and family using different techniques in order to isolate them so that the electronic mind control has more effect on their psyche.  Like in Guantanamo, the target becomes isolated losing their job and medical care. Part of the method involves slander in their community. They end up on the most part in poverty and paranoid about doctors and other people from false correlations that are purposefully induced into their lives. Isolation is also a form of sensory deprivation which will be discussed later. Days and weeks lose their meaning.

  1. Sexually Disturbing Tailored Pornography

The Summary of the Senate Torture Report disclosed the disgusting revelations that in the secret torture prisons the targets were forced to perform homosexual acts on each other against their will and religion in order not to be beaten or killed. This is a common break down tactic of belief systems and the human will. In no-touch torture the techniques are more psychologically specialized for each target. Most common examples include homosexual targets that are forced with voices that are derogatory to their lifestyle and similar mental images. Almost all targets are forced to view child pornography in their minds. And vice versa is true, that heterosexual targets are forced to view homosexual sexual acts like in the secret U.S. torture prisons.

  1. Mutilation

Also mentioned in the declassified report on torture was mutilation of the human. Cutting the naked target’s penis and scrotum, pulling nails or teeth is common.  In no-touch torture mutilation is done by trickery.  Let us look at a couple examples. There have been several targets who believed that the microwave hearing effect and other voice induction methods were done by microchips implanted in their teeth or ears. They had all their teeth pulled because they believed it was a technology called bone conductance. Others have poked out their ear drums in the belief they had micro implants in their ears. There are many more examples of trickery used to make the targets mutilate themselves.

  1. Personal and Spiritual Defamation

In physical torture the CIA and other groups use propaganda and defamation of character for those they oppose. For detainees they try to disenfranchise the target from their religion. They will defecate on their Bible or Koran for example. They might say, “Why is your God not saving you?”  In no touch torture and behavior modification they might try to make an atheist believe in god. It is just a mechanism to alter belief systems for control and experimentation. Perhaps the target may wish to confess their secrets to a “voice of god weapon”. Information warfare covers the gamut of electronic communication as well. The government training exercise uses language like “befriend”, “infiltrate”, “mask/mimic”, “ruse”, “set-up”, “disrupt”, “create cognitive stress”, “use deception”, “ruin business relationships”, and “post negative information on appropriate forums” – in a malicious effort to target bloggers, activists, journalists, social event organizers and anyone else deemed to be a ‘emerging leader’ or voice in the public sphere.

  1. Psychological Intimidation

This is a topic for a target at the beginning of the trials and programs. Physical break-ins are common even if the target has an alarm system. The NSA has used stalking of foreign officials in the past for economic gain. The FBI does black bag jobs to invade a home without a warrant. The point is to let the target know they are being watched and to increase their paranoia. The NSA easily hacks all computer systems and causes harm to the victim’s intellectual property and their relationships from that endpoint. In the no touch torture false correlations between pain and a neighbor coming home can be induced.

  1. Rape

Rape is a common practice in torture. It causes much psychological trauma. In the United States methods of rape in their military and CIA secret prisons it is often relabeled. It is commonly done by prods but “rectal rehydration” is the more common misnomer. Often they call it forced feeding through the rectum but it is meant to induce psychological scaring and trauma. Several have died from the technique due to rectal bleeding.  In no-touch torture the psychological trauma of simulated rape takes on different forms. Using technique often called EEG-heterodyning the targets will receive molestation effects of their genitals. In men this can be the anus and genitals. Similarly women can be wirelessly raped by the analogous function of perception.

  1. Dietary Manipulation, Forced Weakness and Sickness

The idea behind dietary manipulation is to weaken the target. This is easily done in a physical setting but in no-touch the hunger trigger needs to be suppressed. Sometimes a false correlation between eating food and sickness is induced to make the target believe they are being poisoned. However, poisoning is common in physical renditions too.

  1. Repetition

Verbal breakdown is most important during interrogations and torture. Obviously speaking the language of the target is necessary. This is why there are interrogators in all languages. Repetition is an important neural linguistic programming interrogation tactic to influence the target mind. During the breakdown process, threats to kill and to torture the target’s family or friends are common. Repetitious questioning and breakdown phrases are automated in both the physical and no-touch versions of torture. An interesting technology that is used for no-touch torture is called chatter bots. Chatter bots, an artificial intelligence program, automate much of the repetition so that the interrogators don’t drive themselves crazy during the neural linguistic torture and programming phases. Let us not forget the Chinese Water Torture, a single drop of water on the forehead of the detainee for months. Repetition is a form of torture.

  1. Sensitization of Pain Impulses

While the reverse can be obtained, optimizing perceived pain and misery is the objective in torture. Each trauma adds to the overall misery throughout life.  Optimization of pain has been studied by the military and intelligence agencies. In the past the CIA has used drugs such as LSD to enhance fear and terror in the subject. Other methods such as hypnosis can increase perceived pain and the power of suggestion such as telling the subject his pinky finger is going to be cut off before it is done. In no-touch torture the same psychological manipulations are exerted. Subliminal and overt suggestions are often told to the subject before the directed energy or EEG heterodyning pain inductions in order to maximize their effectiveness.

  1. Sensory Overload and Deprivation

Again, this technique of overloading or depriving the human of sensory stimulus is ubiquitous in torture around the world not just in U.S. secret prisons. Torture subjects in the United States have reported the use of repetitive bad music and noise campaigns. An unusual torture technique used in the U.S. secret prisons was of a use of a plastic suit filled with ice while they beat the target.  Ultra bright lights for days on end in the prison and hot/cold temperature changes in the environment are frequent. In no-touch torture, the target’s brain is forced to release dopamine which causes pupil dilatation. This acts as a sensory overload. For example the non-lethal microwave weapons research done by a professor in University of Nevada has shown this capability. Body metabolism can be altered with these weapons causing cold and hot flashes.  Targets of no-touch torture often hear endless tinnitus.

  1. Sexual Humiliation and Lack of Privacy

Often used in common prisons is a lack of privacy. It is both necessity for security and a form of sexual humiliation. Also in prison many people are raped. No-touch torture offers the same sexual humiliation and lack of privacy by using through wall radar, cameras, and EEG visual cloning to let the target know they are being watched. Degrading comments are often used on the no-touch torture subjects while they are naked or in the bathroom.

  1. Maximum Sensory Pain Techniques

Basic torture involves brutalization, i.e. physical strikes, kicks in the groin, pepper spray or tear gas, etc. Anything that involves maximum pain is the objective. Amazingly, these same basic tortures can be done wirelessly into the human mind. All forms of sickness have been reported without any real illness behind the suffering.  All suffering can be entrained into the minds of no-touch torture subjects.

  1. Sleep Deprivation

This is the number one torture method along with the popularity in the press of water boarding.  This is done in every country that uses torture. The United States is number one in torture since they are currently the world’s only superpower.  A repetitive sleep deprivation cycle is generally done 180 hrs/7.5 days at a time in the physical renditions, or in no-touch torture five days awake and two days of sleep.  Sleep deprivation accomplishes the objective of memory loss during interrogation and induces hallucinations which help with the interrogation process. In behavior modification and programming it is necessary too.

  1. Stress Positions

Keeping detainees handcuffed above their head and to walls so that they must stand for days is a common ploy in torture. These types of poses are called stress positions. They can be mimicked in no-touch torture. An example of one such trick requires the target to believe they can deflect radar energy using pots or pans and that it is directional. The target is being given an ample amount of pain until their hands and arms are spread apart holding the pans trying to block the signals. They must maintain that position in order to get any relief from the torture signals. However the stress position itself is physical torture. Often accompanying this technique are voices saying to the target, “You are doing it to yourself.”

We will finish off this summary of U.S. and its allies’ torture, interrogation, and behavior modification experimentation with ideas of why they are done to the general public and falsely accused detainees.  Anyone can be put into these programs. Justice and rule of law does not exist at the highest levels of government. Treaties are worthless because the #1 agreement in the rules of war, a ban against torture, is not obeyed. This creates a more brutal and barbaric society lead by example.

No-touch torture uses the same interrogation tactics as physical interrogations but with some new twists. Techniques such as “Jeff and Mutt” a.k.a. “Good Cop Bad Cop” are used. The bad cop tortures the target and the good cop tries to gain their trust. In mind control, trust games are commonly employed to manipulate the beliefs of the target.  Creating hatred of groups through false correlations and deception is a common CIA method of trickery.

In the CIA programs, the target is put through these phases as written in the documentation, “Disorient and confuse the target. Use them for our purposes, and then dispose of them in any way possible.” We can only surmise by our sample set of a thousand people what “dispose” means: prison, suicide, or perhaps a mental hospital.  Coercing and torturing people to suicide is very common. Both tactics in physical or no-touch torture involves plausible deniability.

The no-touch interrogations are better than physical rendition techniques for exposing support networks. Traditional NSA tracking of email and phones calls are useful but if the targets are taken into a secret prison they can’t contact their networks. In no-touch torture, the target will contact everyone who might help them. Then those relationships can be destroyed to isolate the target. All these techniques rely on the target having a fear of death and pain.

Deception is very important during interrogation. In physical interrogations the targets are often drugged. This creates the confusion necessary to pull off certain trickery. In terrorist interrogations, for example, the CIA uses fake newspapers to make the target believe whatever event they were suspected of plotting had already happened, obviously looking for a confession.  Sometimes the government in charge of the torture is looking for a political gain through a false confession. None-the-less false flag operations are commonly used in both forms of torture and interrogation.  The trick is to make the target believe another foreign country is doing it to them. In no-touch torture the trick is to make them believe someone related to them is behind their suffering.

Voice transformation and morphing is an interesting technology also used in both physical and wireless interrogations. It is a form of deception used against a target to trick them into believing that they are speaking to real people that they know. It has been used in war to trick generals.  Obviously spoofing email and other identities on internet forums can be used in this manner too.

Finally, the topic of human experimentation for improving weapons, torture, interrogation, and social disruption methods will be breached.  Most of the techniques mentioned above work most effectively if the target has no SERE training (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) or psychological understanding of the methods to influence the human mind. Unfortunately, every sample point in the world’s society needs to be studied to improve the weapons systems. This is why many random people are put into the torture and mind control experiments. There are some devious uses of a secret army of remote controlled assassins in every country in the world. The samples must include different education, language, culture, and economic factors.  Obviously, silencing dissidents, oppositions of political parties, and whistleblowers are included in the lists of applications. The most disturbing of the trends in torture is testing and improving it. No-touch torture is much more complex than physical torture. Testing design flaws and weaknesses of the signal intelligence is one reason why it is necessary to test on innocent targets. Often the subject will be taunted by the statement, “Try to stop us.” This statement forces the torture subject to try to figure out shielding and jamming techniques to stop the wireless torture and helps the weapons designers to improve on the system.

However, the psychological and perceived physical pain is only half the story with no-touch torture. It also involves a set of scripts, mind games if you will, to walk the target to murder and/or suicide. This is called “Hyper Game Theory”.  It is used in war games to determine how to control your enemies and targets.  Game Theory can be used on governments, individuals, or for determining propaganda to alter cultures. The experiments on the public provide a means to test the efficacy of these scripts and determine under what circumstances to use them.

One last comment on why “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex” as President Eisenhower warned. During these torture programs run by the United States and its allies, accurate “truth” data points need to be used to judge the efficiency of the interrogation methods. This is why there is a dispute between the CIA and Senate Intelligence Committee reports about the usefulness of torture. Subterfuge by the CIA hacking into the senate oversight committee’s computers is a big deal; a rogue agency has been formed. Data fusion centers, Homeland Security Data Fusion Centers, NSA, and FBI collect data on Americans. This data in turn is used during torture and interrogation of Americans in no-touch torture.