Tag Archives: OHRP

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

Ramola D/Posted 10/14/2017

Part I: The Colonizing of the Human Brain – The Voice to Skull Program: Classic CIA Torture

Chris-headshot

Chris Burton

Chris Burton was the founder of two Silicon Valley IT staffing and consulting companies and an art gallery for local Denver artists when he became a victim of America’s classified “Manhattan District” Electromagnetic/Neuro Weapons development and non-consensual experimentation program. Trapped in a psychotronic research lab he could not escape from, he founded three charity fundraising companies in hopes of appealing to the humanity of the US government which chose to further the covert ambitions of its intelligence agencies instead and continue the program. Chris’s story takes readers through the confounding experience of being electromagnetically kidnapped and tortured with no explanation with powerful Neuroweapon technology that revealed its full capabilities progressively, over a 13 year period, finally exposing the true purpose of the program in December of last year – the creation of a Manchurian Candidate. 

Ed Note: “Voice to Skull” in this interview is being used by Chris as a catch-all Remote Neuro Tech term to cover “all of the psychotronic technologies that transmit an electromagnetic frequency into a target for the purposes of psychological or physiological study or torture.”

Ramola D: Chris, thank you so much first for coming forward to address these important issues of non-consensual neuro-experimentation, assault with military-grade weapons, neuro-hacking, synthetic telepathy, and bio-robotization. I also understand your story will reveal that Voice to Skull uses classic, documented CIA Torture techniques.

Chris Burton: Thank you for having me and for all of the hard work you’ve been putting into exposing psychotronic technology and the non-consensual experimentation programs associated with it. You are truly one of my personal heroes Ramola. I mean that.

This story is 100% true and details exactly what Voice to Skull experimentation programs–which CIA and Navy scientist Robert Duncan admits to having developed software for–are doing on a day-to-day basis to non-consensual test subjects around the world. I hope everybody reads the entire interview because the intent is not only to provide deep insight into the program and what Voice to Skull torture is, but also present a clear framework for understanding and communicating the intricacies of the experiments and the technology to friends, family, journalists, academics, elected officials, law enforcement, and the medical community.

Despite how incredible some of this technology might sound to the reader (because it parallels intriguing concepts such as telepathy), a critical takeaway could be that the US made a series of institutional-level decisions that put the most dangerous weapon system ever invented by man into the hands of everyday humans, who despite their “credentials” were no better equipped to handle such an awesome responsibility than your everyday citizen.

These are not technologies being developed by the military for altruistic purposes like curing mental illness or helping the paralyzed walk again. That kind of work is being conducted openly at public and private research facilities around the world and consists of programs tech billionaires, academia, and places like DARPA are clamoring to publicize their involvement in.

The programs I’m going to describe are military-directed NON-CONSENSUAL torture experiments designed to, as Robert Duncan describes, determine the “probability of death” and other psychological breaking points in a subject by pairing the operational military/intelligence advantages that EMF neuro-technology provides with classic torture techniques that allow war planners to conduct Stealth, No Touch, No Mark enemy interrogation, elimination, and Soviet-era-style psycho-prison detention programs around the world.

The institutional-level decisions to classify the weaponry; the identification and recruitment of some of the most fiendish minds on the planet; and the top-down adherence to protocols designed to protect all participants’ anonymity have combined, once again in human history, to create unimaginable atrocity and unexplainable cowardice in the only elements of society that can help (mainly law enforcement, academia, the medical community, human rights, and journalism).

Voice to Skull Devices Definition Removed in 2008 by US Army from Online Military Thesaurus: Why?

v2k-1a

Army Yanks “Voice-to-Skull Devices” Site/Click to visit Wired.com for this May 2008 Sharon Weinberger article

v2k-1b

Yanked “voice to skull devices” definition in Military Thesaurus/Click to visit saved screenshot at Christians Against Mental Slavery, slavery.org.uk

Before we begin, I’d like to quickly point out to all of the techies out there that I’m not here to nitpick the definition of V2K versus RNM (Remote Neural Monitoring) versus something else. By using the term “Voice to Skull,” I’m talking about all of the psychotronic technologies that transmit an electromagnetic frequency into a target for the purposes of psychological or physiological study or torture.

To a Voice to Skull victim, there’s no delineation between hearing a voice, having your thoughts read, emotions being injected, dreams manipulated, communicating telepathically, or having your body parts moved. It’s all one continuous beam that shadows you everywhere you go and never stops transmitting/receiving evoked potentials which is the brain’s software code.

What’s becoming apparent to me, the longer I’m in the program, is that these psychotronic technologies are now becoming capable of influencing a person without them knowing it. This is where the tech is right now. The gulf between perceptible and imperceptible is quickly disappearing.

I think the best thing for me to do today is just to tell my story, describe the experiments and hopefully educate the public and the TI (“Targeted Individual”) community about Voice to Skull torture.

Ramola D: Thank you for that reminder of how profoundly invasive and dangerous these Stealth Military/Intelligence technologies are, for all humanity–why all of us should be paying close attention.

I understand you once had a very successful IT business, Chris. Can you start by telling us more about that?

Chris Burton: After I graduated from the University of Colorado, Boulder (Business, Finance), I moved to Seattle and started working for Aerotek. At the time Aerotek was enjoying rapid growth and is today the largest IT staffing company in the United States (now called Allegis).

Chris-1After a year, I was recruited into a systems integration company called CompuCom Systems to work in their San Francisco office. My first cousin had just left medical school and was living in the Bay Area at the time and when I explained Aerotek’s business model to him we decided to start our own company, Dedicated Onsite Consulting (DOC). We recruited two of my former colleagues from Aerotek to join us and together we grew the company from zero to $12 million in annual revenue in 4 years which was very similar to building a branch office for Aerotek.

At the time, we had about 25 internal employees and 200 consultants in the field. Remedy Staffing offered us $9 million in cash, plus an earnout, for the company in 2000 but we turned them down, opting to continue growing the business. By 2001 the .COM crash and 9/11 severely impacted spending in Silicon Valley and, unfortunately, we didn’t have the working capital to survive the downturn.

By 2004, my cousin had moved to England to be with his fiancée who was completing her Ph.D in Environmental Law at Oxford, and my other two partners were focused on a real estate development project, so I started another IT consulting company called Watermill Consulting.

Chris-2Watermill quickly became the number one provider of consulting services to Business Objects (now SAP) for their $23 million-dollar global PeopleSoft Financials, ESA, ELM, Vantive, and Salesforce.com implementations and was leading an ERP implementation at Dassault Systemes America (which included SolidWorks). You can find all of this info along with a personal recommendation from Business Objects’ and Yahoo’s head of IT on my LinkedIn profile. Watermill was competing against firms like Accenture for projects and winning because it was lean which meant if could bill less than our competitors and pay higher rates to consultants.

Ramola D: It sounds like you were exceptionally accomplished and successful in your career and you were all set to live a highly productive life.

Chris Burton: Yes. I owned a penthouse loft for ten years across the street from Coors Field in Denver’s LoDo neighborhood and thought I had set up a good life for myself. I was growing my second successful company which had netted over $600k in just over a year and because it was winning higher level projects Watermill could potentially be sold at a higher multiple (of its EBITDA) than DOC, down the road.

Chris-3Chris-4Chris-5

My sister, who’s a CMO (Chief Marketing Officer) looked up to me, I had a great group of friends and a very active social life. I even started an art gallery for local Denver artists called LUZ. I had no idea I was about to be put into a program like Voice to Skull.

LUZ Art Gallery, Denver

LUZ Art Gallery, Denver

Ramola D: So at this point you had moved back from Silicon Valley to Denver where you had grown up, you had a second company which was very successful. Did anything go wrong from the start or were things fine at the beginning? How did the Voice to Skull program begin?

Chris Burton: Two important things happened in California in ’04 which I believe are connected to Voice to Skull. I’ll mention them now before we dive into the hell of Voice to Skull so the readers know everything I know about the possible origins of my torture program.

After the .com crash and 9/11, my first company, DOC, was on life support so I rented out my loft in Denver and moved back to the Bay Area in hopes of reviving it. I moved into a friend of a friend’s house in Half Moon Bay which was about a 40-minute drive from our office in San Mateo. Everything seemed fine until I found out my partners from DOC were no longer conducting staffing operations from our office and had become involved in a real estate development project which they wouldn’t tell me anything about. Because of this my cousin Joe, who was living in Oxford with his fiancé, and I decided to part ways with our business partners and sold our remaining shares in the company.

Before Joe and I sold our shares, I went to the office one night to read through our files because I was concerned that DOC money was being used to fund my business partners’ real estate project. When I walked into the office at about 8:00 pm, I immediately noticed a small file-holder/case sitting in the middle of the floor. It contained the contracts between my business partners and the banks from which they had secured their bank loans, and nothing else.

It was all of the information I was looking for and it was just laying right there in the middle of the floor as soon as I walked in. I practically tripped over it. At the time, I thought one of my partners had set it down and forgotten to pick it back up on their way out of the office but now I believe it was put there on purpose. The real estate project apparently turned into a huge disaster. The building was never built despite millions being raised for the project.

After I sold my shares in DOC, I started Watermill Consulting and started working on the Business Objects project. Things were going great until my landlord in Half Moon Bay, Michael Raines, started acting very strangely and did something so outrageous it defies explanation. This was the second thing that I believe is connected to Voice to Skull.

Ramola D: What exactly happened? What do you know of this person’s background and affiliations?

Chris Burton: Michael’s father was a patent attorney for Genentech and had made a lot of money before he passed away. I moved in with Michael because a mutual friend of ours said he was an okay guy. He was living in his mothers’ house on the first tee of the Half Moon Bay Golf Links.

Things were okay in the beginning but after a month or so I began noticing Michael hanging around my bedroom door whenever I was on the phone with my clients. I didn’t think too much about it until he started behaving as if he knew some big secret about me. When his friends would come over they would immediately run upstairs to Michael’s room, giggling like little kids, crouch in front of a TV and shut the door.

Michael, who, I learned after living with him, had done a year in federal prison for selling drugs and had a long criminal record, began gang-stalking me with his friends and actually attempted to shake me down for money claiming he had taped private conversations between me and my client which could damage my reputation. My client and I were good friends and often talked about funny stories having to do with other executives we knew (their personal lives, etc.) which put me in a vulnerable position.

The focus of his overt suspicions centered around my relationship with the Senior Director of IT for Business Objects who at this time had become a good friend of mine (we started working together in ‘96 when he ran IT for Levi Strauss). Christopher Brooks, the Senior Director, had his own company and had brought in my company to fulfill the staffing piece of the project at Business Objects. I had a consulting agreement with Christopher’s company which the founder of Business Objects, Bernard Liautaud, had personally approved, and a master service agreement with Business Objects so I had a very secure business relationship.

Michael’s posturing (about this “big secret”) turned from blind insinuation to overt intimidation when one day he started cleaning his shotgun in front of me and said something like, “Sometimes you never know who you’re dealing with…” From that point on, whenever his friends made an appearance in the house, they would stay silent and look at each other and grin whenever I tried to start a conversation.

I’m telling this story because Michael’s behavior was odder than anything I had ever experienced in my life up to that point. I moved out because of this, but a month later he invited me over so he could “apologize” so I went over to his house to find out what was going on and to keep things cool between us.

When I arrived, Michael was sitting in the living room with his friend Curtis. The first thing out of his mouth was, “Just so you know, you’re being recorded.” I didn’t know what was going on. Michael then started asking questions about Christopher Brooks and Claudio Sylvestri who was the former CEO of Compaq Computer and Business Objects. I just sat there in stunned silence. Michael then said he had cameras installed throughout his (mom’s) house, had been recording my conversations, and “knew everything” as if he was piecing together a conspiracy. Christopher had shared with me a lot of private stories about Claudio, who was one of his good friends, on the phone and we always talked about the contractors and employees at Business Objects so I became really worried that Michael was going to do something stupid like fire off a bunch of embarrassing emails to my client, just for the hell of it.

Then Michael made it a point to tell me that one of his spy cameras was located in a plastic owl that sat on the doorstep of his house and I remembered a conversation I’d had with Christopher while sitting on the doorstep. We’d been talking about taking a trip together to Mexico after the project. At that point I realized what the “big secret” was that Michael and his friends were holding against me (in addition to a few Claudio/Christopher Vegas stories).

Michael thought Christopher was a full-time employee of Business Objects when he was actually a consultant working Corp-to-Corp through his own consulting company. Christopher’s company and my company were solution provider partners in the project which meant there was nothing wrong with hanging out together if we wanted to.

The fact Christopher and I were such good friends really bothered Michael so he was trying to make me think that he had me over a barrel because of the conversations he had taped. I was just completely flabbergasted but didn’t feel the need to explain the details of my business to a sicko jackass who was spying on me and just said, “Michael, just know that there’s nothing illegal going on,” and walked out of his house.

When I walked outside, his friend Curtis approached me and said while rubbing his fingers together, “If you give us a little some some (meaning money), I’ll tell you what’s going on.” I didn’t have anything to worry about legally so I just left and moved back to Denver a few months later. The whole experience was absolutely surreal but I had a business to protect so I stayed calm and just walked away.

Ramola D: So now you were running your second company Watermill Consulting in Denver. What happened next?

Chris Burton: Things were fine in Denver for a couple months until one day I learned that my company was being investigated! Someone had sent an anonymous tip to a manager at Business Objects claiming Christopher and I had an “improper relationship.” This accusation was quashed after Business Objects’ own legal, internal audit, and security groups found nothing improper had taken place. It turned out that an unhappy contractor provided the tip but I still don’t know the actual details behind the allegation, how deep it went, or if Michael Raines was involved. After the investigation closed, the contractor was fired and Christopher and I kept the project, so I thought everything was behind me until Voice to Skull started a week later.

Somewhere between 2004 and 2005 I was put onto a targeted individual list. Maybe Michael had been busted again for selling drugs and was making up an accusation against me to escape prosecution. Or maybe it had something to do with my ex-partners’ failed real estate project. The file left out on the floor at my office, the interrogation and shakedown at Michael’s house, and the anonymous tip and investigation of my company clearly indicate to me that something had been going on in California that was connected to Voice to Skull.

Ramola D: Can you describe the first instance of Voice to Skull that you can recall? How did this start happening?

Chris Burton: So, a week after the investigation ended, Voice to Skull began at my loft. I was sitting in my office alone when, out of nowhere, I began hearing a man and woman talking about me. The man and woman, who both sounded like mature adults in their 40s or 50s, were talking about the recent investigation.

Reported V2K Transmissions

The man said, It looks like Chris has been cleared and is receiving more (job) requisitions, and the woman replied, Well I’m glad everything worked out… What do you think is going to happen now?

When these conversations began I knew immediately it was a live conversation between two people. It was unmistakable. It was as if someone just turned on a speaker and started broadcasting two people’s conversations into my loft. My place was a top floor corner unit with concrete floors and ½ double-walled drywall separating my unit from my neighbor’s so it was absolutely baffling to me how it was being done.

I thought it was a prank at first but the two of them just continued talking all day long and then started up again about five minutes after I got up the next morning. I suspected my downstairs neighbors were playing a joke on me but after the conversations continued for a week straight, I realized it was much more than just a practical joke. The sound was impossible to localize or shield against which created the most insanely unfair advantage a person could ever have over another.

This was the beginning of what I call treatments. Treatments are scenarios or storylines built up verbally by the Voice to Skullers over time, like an old radio show, or soap opera, that are carefully crafted to lead you into believing whatever they tell you. They take time to establish and are incredibly well-scripted.

Ramola D: Echoes there with the classic screenwriting use of “treatments,” which spell out storyline.

Chris Burton: The dialog is mostly improvised but the storylines deepen every day, as if there’s a team of writers working non-stop to develop new plot twists. Every day more and more pages are added to the manuscript which, like a soap opera, always stays consistent with what was written the day before, and the day before that, and the day before that. You could wake up and have completely forgotten about what was said the night before and the Voice to Skullers will pick up right where they left off.

Treatments are always designed to build up your hope for a potential release over a period of time, only to destroy it (usually traumatically). It’s as if Orson Wells and Joseph Mengele got together every single day for years to psychologically torment a blind person in their custody who’s desperate to be released. I’ll talk a lot more about treatments throughout the interview because they make up a great deal of the torture and are KEY to understanding the differences between Voice to Skull torture and a mental illness like AVH (Audio Verbal Hallucinations) or schizophrenia.

After a few days, the non-stop conversations between the man and the woman began to include two other males. Now all four of them were talking about me all day long. These are what the Voice to Skullers referred to as “mirrored conversations.” For the first few days, the mirrored conversations made me think my neighbors were involved, but as they continued I understood clearly that they were using this technique of speaking as an interrogation tool. When someone is speaking to someone else about you, you tend to spill your guts in an attempt to clarify whatever questions they have. After a few weeks, I started speaking back to the group out loud, and I knew they could hear me because their conversations would start to include information I had just spoken out loud.

The Voice to Skullers, over the next seven years, used non-stop mirrored conversations, 16 hours/day, to draw out every last detail about my life (my stories, information about my friends and family, everything), which they used to build a schematic of my life. Seven years later they stopped the mirrored conversations and began speaking to me directly. This schematic, also called omniscience or hyper game theory, allowed them to always stay a step ahead and create more and more personalized treatments (storylines) having to do with what Voice to Skull is, why I was in the program, who was involved, when I would be released, and more.

Treatments are meticulously designed to take advantage of what you “think” is going on while never revealing the full capability of the underlying technology which can imitate people’s voices perfectly, hear what you’re hearing, and see what you’re seeing (all of which CIA Whistleblower Robert Duncan confirms in his YouTube interviews).

Here’s an example of a very short, two-day treatment and its traumatic ending, that would have taken place in the first few months of Voice to Skull. Pay attention to the pattern which always starts with unrelenting torture (for long periods of time), a pivot (in the way you’re being treated), the creation of trust between the victim and the torturer, the build-up of hope in the victim (that they’ll be released), the establishment of believability in the victim that a release is imminent, and finally the traumatic crash that instantly snaps the victim back to their hopeless reality. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ariel Castro, and other notorious psychopaths played the same mind games with their victims.

Reported V2K Transmissions

The torturers might have kept you up all night long the day before explaining how your life was sacrificed for America’s ambitions to develop electromagnetic weapons.

They go on about their limitless budgets and how deep their ties are in the government and how truly insignificant you and all your professional accomplishments are to them.

They tell you they’re professional torturers and don’t give a shit who you are. They’re here to do a job which is to torture you.

During a previous interrogation you admitted to drinking and driving so they tell you that people who drink and drive are scum and that you deserve to be tortured.

And just like someone in a powerful position, or a drunk person, can spout non-stop for hours at a time, the Voice to Skullers can go on for hours about you (or just about any topic).

They trade off talking in a mirrored conversation like malevolent prison guards establishing their power and shooting the shit.

But the next day, a Voice to Skuller brings up something about you they like. You’ve been through countless treatments before and know they always end badly so you take the compliment with a grain of salt but your brain remembers it, and because you’re electronically “binded” to their conversations you have to just sit there and listen.

Now, one of them brings up some vague reference to that “thing” you did that put you into Voice to Skull and you wonder what it was.

You explain to them that you’ve never hurt a fly in your life and have no criminal record and re-tell elements of your life story that backs this up.

They continue talking but now in a more placid tone. Over a period of 12 hours they’ve moved from hatred to somewhat sympathetic and then say, “You know, we’ve been maniacs. We shouldn’t be doing this to Chris.”

Then another Voice to Skuller chimes in and says, “You know it’s hard doing this. I’m not even mad at Chris.”

You notice this slight shift in their attitude and you start to think that maybe they’re thinking more critically about the program.

Their arrogance declines a bit and they start talking more like “buddies” of yours saying things like, “This program is just a piece of shit man. None of us wants to be here.”

This makes you loosen up and you might say something funny and they laugh with you.

This more reassuring tone continues as they talk about some of your funny stories, or brag about your baseball playing days in high school, and then one of them says, “Something big is actually happening behind the scenes that is going to save Chris!”

They’ve been talking positively for hours (days or even weeks in longer treatments), so now you actually start feeling confident that the torture might end!

And then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, they say something like, “Chris, you know how we’re going to help you get out of this? We’re going to $#%@ing bash your head in with a sledgehammer and kill your $#%*ing sister tonight you stupid $*#K!”

That’s usually how treatments end. It’s like trying to climb out of a well and then being abruptly snapped back to the bottom where you have to start the climb all over again.

One time, they spent months building up the character of a woman Voice to Skuller named Doreen who was “new” to the program. She would come online usually after 5:00 pm with two other male Voice to Skullers. She was nice sounding, spoke very articulately and seemed to have a fresh perspective on things as if she was new to the entire Voice to Skull project (maybe a psychologist or researcher).

She stayed on the sidelines for the first few weeks while they threatened to kick my ass when I went out with my friends, lobbed insults, and kept me up all night talking, but after about a month she started to speak her mind and expressed more and more doubts about the purpose of the program. She had the same authority as the other Voice to Skullers so when she got angry at them, they had to listen. After a few weeks of this, whenever I heard her voice, I actually started to feel relief because the other Voice to Skullers would stop torturing me when she was in the room. (At the time I thought the Voice to Skullers were all in the same room.)

After about two months, she would always say things like, “Chris just needs to hang in there a little while longer. This program is full of assholes and there’s NO WAY they’re EVER going to get away with this…” After two months of getting to know her I felt confident that she was my champion in the program, but one day, out of absolutely nowhere, she said “Getting out of this is going to be easy for Chris… Once we slit his F#$king stomach open and watch his guts fall out, he’s out!” Then one of the male Voice to Skullers said, “Doreen, get over here, get down on your knees and suck my D#*K.” And she replied, “I’d rather F##K the S##T out of you!” And that was it. After more than two months of building up goodwill and a rapport with Doreen my hopes for release were dashed and I realized I was a prisoner in a deeply demented cult of some kind.

They tortured me for weeks after that but then started building me up again saying things like, “Chris, we picked you because we thought you would be tough. If we didn’t think you could handle this, you wouldn’t be here.”

This, of course, along with technology involved makes you think you have to hang in there, and that Voice to Skull isn’t a cult, it’s a massive psychology experiment that hand-picked you for your “toughness,” and the cycle begins again.

Another long-term treatment I experienced had to do with John Hickenlooper (Ed Note: Two-term Mayor of Denver, now Governor of Colorado) being suspected of putting me into Voice to Skull. John lived a block away from me in downtown Denver. For seven months, the Voice to Skullers kept up with this treatment which played out on a week-to-week basis. It wasn’t the only thing they talked about, it was just layered in with about eight other ongoing treatments mostly having to do with the police and a number of my friends being involved.

The treatment played out like this:

Reported V2K Transmissions

Voice to Skull is of course a super-secret govt program that I’m trapped in but many of my friends were supposedly brought in to help me and they want answers.

The Voice to Skullers don’t know how I was put into the program but they also want to help me.

They suspect John might have “put me in” because one night I blasted my stereo with the windows open which pissed him off.

I’m told that someone from the program asked John about his involvement and he refused to answer their questions.

A couple weeks later Voice to Skull tells me that John (who was the Mayor at the time) is being pressured to answer questions from the State Department about whether or not he put me into the program.

The torturers continued talking non-stop and constantly reminded me of how serious my situation was (telling me that this is a program they put terrorists in), but every once in a while, they would interject something about the John situation.

This went on for months until one day they said John acquiesced and a date had been set on which he would have to answer the State Department’s questions.

The day of the “inquiry” they projected a picture in my mind of Hickenlooper sitting at a desk (with a mic) on the stage of an auditorium. He was sitting on one side of the stage and the State Department officials were sitting behind a desk (with a mic) on the other side. They showed a few snap shots of a large audience seated in an auditorium and other snap shots of people I knew sitting together (in the audience). The pictures were colorless (the way images are in your head) and none of them showed John, the State Department officials, and the audience together in one shot.

The “inquiry” proceedings were communicated to me through Voice to Skull live and mimicked Hickenlooper’s voice perfectly as he sort of dodged and weaved his way around the questions like Bill Clinton. I listened to it while I was at home working and took a couple of business calls.

When I hung up the show was still going on, live, I just missed some questions that had been asked. It was perfectly scripted with dozens of characters (each with a unique voice) that played their roles perfectly through the entire inquiry.

John never provided any concrete information about his involvement to the panel from the “State Department” so the treatment just kept evolving into something else the next day having to do with the Denver Police and FBI being involved.

As the years went by, the treatments became longer and more complex, and grandiose, because what they were saying was always so hard to believe.

By the end of Year One they had convinced me that my neighbors were involved.

By Year Two they made me think my high school friends, and their friends, were involved.

In Year Three they made me believe some of the executive directors from the charities I worked with were involved.

By the fourth year they said John Hickenlooper, the Denver Police, and the FBI had put me into the program.

By the fifth year they said an old lonely reclusive billionaire was funding the torture because he wanted to give his money away to someone who had “been through hell.”

By Year Six they said my uncle, Vera Gowlland-Debbas, the ACLU, and UN were involved.

By Year Seven they said the US Navy and Susan Rice were helping me.

In Year Eight celebrities and heads of industry Larry Ellison, Trey Parker, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon had joined in.

By Year Nine my former employers CompuCom Systems and Aerotek, along with Yahoo (which was a client of mine) were lobbying to have me released.

And by Year Twelve, when I was living in East Palo Alto, President Obama, Marissa Mayer, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and half of Hollywood and Washington had all come together to stop Voice to Skull. This was when they introduced bio-robotization technology that could move my body parts. That treatment, which I’ll describe later, was so dramatic that it ended with me having to be airlifted to the hospital where I spent an entire month recovering. I’ll talk about that later.

Ramola D: So these are highly elaborate treatments, referring to people you know, as well as public figures and celebrities, that seem to be highly structured and constantly put you through an emotional wringer, building you up and letting you down—as if a military or CIA psychologist working amorally on torture techniques had invented them.

Chris Burton: I’ve been through many hundreds of treatments like this involving all sorts of characters supposedly becoming involved in order to help me and all of them ended with an emotional thud. If I had a distant relationship to someone through friends or family, like celebrities or CEOs, they were included. Every storyline was built on the previous one in a highly organized way that would require a full-time project manager to keep track of.

Anybody you know could be built up as an “insider” who signed a non-disclosure agreement making it impossible for them to talk about it. And because the technology is so incredible, and electromagnetic weapons are so important, you’ll believe almost anyone could be participating.

It wasn’t until a few years into my torture that I discovered just how closely their treatments resembled the psychological torture and enhanced interrogation techniques perfected by Russian and US intelligence services. These techniques guided their daily conversations which were, again, all intended to build up stress and anxiety in the victim and lead them to believe they’d soon be released.

Ramola D: Thank you for drawing my attention to the undeniable commonalities between classic KGB Communist Russian torture techniques, the CIA’s 1963 KUBARK Counter-Intelligence manual of torture, the CIA’s 1983 HRETM (Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual) torture techniques, Rumsfeld’s Working Group’s SERE-based Guantanamo psychological torture techniques, and these V2K torture techniques, which you have spelled out in the Torture Techniques document you sent me, along with your answers here to this interview. (Ed Note: Please see the Torture Techniques Document linked here, under Related, below.)

Chris Burton: The Russian, KUBARK, HRETM and Working Group (Rumsfeld) psychological torture techniques used to build up my treatments included the following:

monopolization of attention, cultivation of anxiety and despair, alternating punishments and rewards, demonstrating omniscience and omnipotence, use of scenarios, denial of privacy, insults, threats, sensory disorientation, emotional love, emotional hate, fear (revved) up harsh, fear up mild, reduced fear, pride and ego up, pride and ego down, futility, establish your identity, repetition approach, file and dossier (convincing the detainee that the interrogator has a damning and inaccurate file that must be fixed), Mutt and Jeff (a team consisting of a friendly and harsh interrogator), rapid fire questioning, sleep adjustment and deprivation, false flag, threat of transfer, isolation, prolonged interrogations and many more that are not documented.

You can find the definitions of these classic CIA Torture techniques on the Internet.

Today, after experiencing just about everything Voice to Skull technology can do, I realize they had been surveilling me back in 2005 by accessing my brain’s evoked potentials, which allows them to listen through my ears and see through my eyes, but they never revealed those capabilities until much later.

By not revealing those capabilities, and just transmitting voices, they were able to make me think all sorts of things were happening that weren’t. For example, they only spoke to me in my loft and car for three years, which made me believe my house and vehicle had cameras and transmitters installed in them. And by commenting on what I was seeing on my computer screen they made me think I was constantly being hacked. None of this was true.

This graduated revealing of their technologies which includes conversations, then voice transformation, then injections of emotions (emotional signal clustering), then lie detection, then forced speech, then hive mind telepathy, then bio-robotization (heterodyning) et al. allows them to create elaborate treatments but it also establishes a timeline of “experiences” that I believe reveals a distinct pattern or signature that’s completely unique to all Voice to Skull victims. Journalists, lawyers and mental health experts, take note.

Ramola D: Would you like to address this distinctive pattern further, which separates Voice to Skull Torture from what psychiatrists call paranoid delusional systems, audio-visual hallucinations, schizophrenia, and schizoid disorders?

Chris Burton: Yes, let me interject with something very important here regarding treatments and this signature pattern of experiences. We’re all familiar with Dr. Lorraine Sheridan and her group-stalking “study” which concludes that people who claim to have been group-stalked, or Voice to Skulled, are most likely delusional.

The basis of her study was an online survey which asked respondents questions that were taken from a PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) questionnaire that basically crossed out the word PTSD and replaced it with “group-stalking.” The questions Sheridan published asked respondents how their condition made them feel, as opposed to being investigatory in nature–as if it was already a foregone conclusion that group-stalking was a mental illness. Sheridan actually cites one of her own papers in the study which suggests group-stalking is “indicative of paranoid delusional systems” which underscores her bias. There are absolutely no references in her survey to the actual conversations people were having with their torturers. This is akin to asking the diplomats in Cuba to explain their feelings, not their symptoms.

Voice to Skull torturers follow a very strict protocol that protects their anonymity while they’re constantly building up treatments. If this protocol and the survey respondents’ description of their treatments were addressed in Dr. Sheridan’s questionnaire, it would have provided a huge amount of insight into the Voice to Skull claims being made by a good number of gang-stalking victims.

It’s apparent from the very beginning when you’re Voice to Skulled that the conversations are coming from human beings because the torturers are always revealing personality traits unwittingly. They use different grammar and diction than you do. Some might speak by pairing prepositions with the word “which” all the time, like an academic, when you (I) don’t. They might make mistakes commenting about the law or historical information (that you happen to know). They might crack up laughing at something funny you said or at the absurdity of the situation. They might even break down and cry as they’re recalling all of the horrible things they’ve put you through.

Torturers never tell you what they look like, or where they grew up, where they went to dinner last night, what their favorite food is, what kind of car they drive, what they do for fun, how many kids they have, what kind of books or movies they like, what nationality they are, and the list goes on and on and on. They speak non-stop, 16+ hours a day, year after year, discussing minute details about your friends, family, and others they claim are involved, but they never break the protocol which protects their anonymity, as if they know what they’re saying is being recorded. Nothing that could triangulate the identity of a torturer is ever mentioned out loud.

Torturers have to concentrate extremely hard in order to create sentences that abide by their protocol. And having to speak so much eventually breaks down their act. This, and the Emmy-winning writing that goes into the treatments, which just picks right up from where it left off the day before, is why real victims of Voice to Skull just roll their eyes when they read books about schizophrenia, bi-polar or delusional disorder.

The conversations that Voice to Skull victims are hearing are completely different. And unlike the 300 million people with AVH and the 1/100 with schizophrenia, Voice to Skull victims report the unique experience of people speaking through their mouths and moving their body parts! Talk about a pattern of “symptoms” that’s completely unique to Voice to Skull.

Ramola D: It’s clear there’s more to this torture than just “voices in heads” pulsed in using military EMF neurotechnology—let’s explore that further shortly.

To return to your early experience, I understand you were bullied by these Voice to Skullers to actually close your successful IT company.

Chris Burton: After about half a year into my torture, I realized I was in big, big trouble. Once they knew I was really scared they told me, in a very calm manner, that they were going to kill me if I didn’t stop working in the IT consulting industry. I was afraid for my life and had no choice but to close down Watermill. They also threatened my sister’s life a week later describing where she had parked that evening. Now, 13 years later, after experiencing so many hundreds of treatments, I regret my decision to close my business and destroy my IT consulting career but at the time it was the only decision I could have made. The technology and treatments are so scary that you can’t take any chances! All a Voice to Skuller needs to do is tell you what color your little girl’s dress is that day and you’ll quit your job, change your testimony, leave the country, or potentially hurt yourself. They have that kind of power.

Ramola D: So this neuroweapon system, by way of its intimidating voice-in-head technology and psychological CIA-Torture techniques is being used as an insidious Social Engineering tool—to effect destructive actions like shutting down a successful career with overt and implied death threats.

Chris Burton: There are three deaths connected to specific treatments they put me through (which are described in my YouTube testimony). Two people died only days after being mentioned on Voice to Skull and my cousin’s mother in law, Vera Gowlland-Debbas, the International Law School Professor, came down with cancer and died eight months after I contacted her and went public on Facebook in 2014.

Ramola D: Are you saying this Voice to Skull program then is connected to a powerful Black Ops organized crime network that doesn’t think twice about committing murders–that people whose names are mentioned by Voice to Skull are being targeted for death?

Chris Burton: Clearly there are no rules of any kind in place for these programs and because there are so many compartmentalized entities taking part in the research, there’s no telling how many personal or political grudges are being settled in these experiments. They’re doing everything they can to protect their anonymity which gives them a license to torture people to suicide and weave into treatments anything they like.

My YouTube testimony goes into the deaths related to my torture pretty deeply. One of the deaths, the most recent one, which happened in January was so traumatizing I thought it had been faked. I just couldn’t believe it happened. Voice to Skull imitated a very good friend of mine for a couple hours one night and he died of a seizure a few days later. This was the very first time they had ever spoken of or imitated this person. His name is David Scott.

Another death, Karen Quintana, who died of an aneurysm in 2014, occurred two days after Voice to Skull spent four hours scolding me about my friendship with her son-in-law. I had just met her a couple weeks before. After that happened I packed my bags and moved to SE Asia to go public about her death and write a book about my experiences with Voice to Skull.

Vera’s death was another traumatic loss that created terrible confusion and anger in me. Vera Gowlland-Debbas was a world-renowned international law school professor and was Palestine’s legal advisor. When I moved to SE Asia to write about Karen’s death I notified Vera and she immediately came down with an aggressive cancer that killed her eight months later. If I had been given a chance to explain Voice to Skull to her, she would have been one of our biggest advocates.

Because these programs are classified, and therefore walled off from society and the law, news about them, if it ever comes, is twenty or more years away so intelligence agencies and researchers can remove anyone they want who’s associated with a TI with zero repercussions. It’s just like walking down the street and sticking someone you don’t like with a needle and giving them Syphilis during the Tuskegee experiments. There’s no difference.

Part 2: Synthetic Telepathy, Hive-Minds, Brain-Cloning, Emotion-Injections, Full Body Takeover – The Living Manchurian Candidate Program

Ramola D: I understand you are making a distinction between Voice to Skull and Synthetic Telepathy. How do you define the latter? What was the first instance of Synthetic Telepathy you can recall?

Chris Burton: Synthetic telepathy was introduced to me after I had lost everything. I quit Watermill and my career in IT consulting because of the death threats, and worked for seven years to build up my credibility in the charity fundraising industry as a way of both protesting the torture and proclaiming my innocence.

I thought that if I created fundraising businesses that exclaimed, “Look at me, I’m raising money for all of these schools and charities,” someone in the Voice to Skull hierarchy or chain of command would take notice and shut down my torture program, but my appeal to their humanity didn’t work and I lost my life savings and home in the process. The Voice to Skullers tortured me non-stop with treatments and other psychological torture techniques the whole time I was working on these companies.

Here are some graphics from the three charity fundraising businesses I started.

Chris-paws1Pawscorp.com allowed customers to donate 30-100% of the profit from over 4000 pet products to one of over 200 schools and 501(c)(3)s. We worked with American Humane, Goodwill, the YMCA, the Wounded Warrior Project, Rush Soccer and many more well-known organizations.

chris-expo1Transitions Expo was a college and career fair for underprivileged youth that benefited The Street School Network. For-profit and state schools/community colleges were represented under one roof.

Pet Family Deals was a 50/50 partnership with the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association. It provided pet-related daily deals, similar to a Groupon for pets.

Chris-7aAfter I lost my loft to foreclosure in 2010, I moved into a friend’s house who did a lot of traveling. I was alone most of the time so the Voice to Skullers created a treatment I call the vetting sessions. They knew my cousin’s wife was an environmental lawyer for the UN and her mother, Vera, was a world renowned international law school professor who wrote the ICJ advisory opinion on the legality of the separation wall in Palestine, Legal Consequences of a Separation Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory, so they pretended that my inclusion in the torture program was causing a huge debate within the institution(s) heading the experiments.

They put on a mock trial which vetted my character and involved a sort of defense lawyer who spoke on my behalf. They said Susan Herman and Jameel Jaffer from the ACLU were involved along with some of my cousin’s friends from LA (who were important people). Once again, this treatment required me to talk about every aspect of my life to the torturers who were pretending to be something like a secret society.

When I brought up the charity fundraising I had done, one particular Voice to Skuller I call Hoarse Voice (because his voice sounded hoarse all the time) spoke up and screamed in my defense, “Listen assholes, Chris was doing everything right and you still Voice to Skulled him!” When this happened, I could literally feel his emotion in my body. He yelled at the other Voice to Skullers for a few minutes and I noticed my hands had clenched up into fists and my lips were mouthing his words! This was the introduction of emotion injecting, body takeovers, and hive mind/synthetic telepathy.

During the vetting sessions treatment, which lasted a week, they brought up a test I had cheated on in high school which I didn’t want to talk about. When they brought it up again a few minutes later, I thought for a second about the cheating, at which point one of the Voice to Skullers exclaimed suddenly, “That’s it, we got him!” This is how they introduced mind-reading and just like all of their technology reveals, it was woven into an elaborate treatment which made me think I had a chance of being released.

It was during the vetting sessions when Voice to Skull started scolding me for being friends with Karen Quintana’s son in law. When I heard Karen passed away two days later I decided to go public and moved to Cambodia and Vietnam in 2014 to write a book about my experiences. My YouTube testimony details a lot about my torture in SE Asia.

When I moved back to the US in 2015, they revealed hive-mind/synthetic telepathy in Palo Alto and I’ve been communicating with them telepathically ever since. Before that, for ten years, I had been speaking out loud to communicate with them.

Synthetic Telepathy is the ability to communicate to the Voice to Skullers by just thinking. Today I realize that they were probably using telepathy on their end the whole time but for years I thought they were using some sort of headset with a microphone.

Ramola D: Are you saying that you think Voice to Skull–the experience of their voices sounded in your head–was actually just Synthetic Telepathy all along? Or what exactly are you saying?

Chris Burton: Yes. I think the Voice to Skullers were using Synthetic Telepathy the whole time on their end. Synthetic Telepathy and Voice to Skull sound exactly the same to the receiver. For 10 years I would talk back out loud, believing that was the only way they could hear me. They didn’t respond to my thoughts for 10 years which made me think I had to speak out loud.

By not revealing this aspect of the technology, and creating obvious “clues” like communicating with me only in my loft and car for three years, they made me think my neighbors were involved or that it was a surveillance operation being conducted by a group located somewhere in downtown Denver (using an LRAD sort of device to transmit the sound and a bug to pick up my voice). For years I would stay up late with a telescope and binoculars looking at all of the windows in downtown Denver hoping to see someone aiming a sonic device at me. This is all part of their game.

Robert Duncan says V2K is transmitted via ground based-transmitters and satellites (for redundancy) and can follow you almost anywhere on earth. He has written two books about the technology and claims they’re transmitting brain frequencies that are unique to the victim from a very long distance away. I’m sure they’re using a combination of technologies, but to the victim, as I said in the beginning, it feels like one beam that follows you around everywhere you go.

Ramola D: And both Synthetic Telepathy and V2K sound like normal voices, normally sounded?

Chris Burton: Yes, both sound exactly the same to the victim. When it first starts you immediately associate it with technologies you’ve heard of, like the LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Radar), so you think in analog terms as if there’s a person speaking into a microphone. Later, however, as they reveal more and more of the technology, you learn that what you’re hearing is not your cochlear membrane being vibrated or bone conduction.

It’s a frequency that’s actually firing neurons and recreating sounds by copying the exact nerve impulses sent from your ears or eyes to your brain. Later, when they started impersonating people’s voices, I realized everything I was hearing had been digitally transformed in some way and then transmitted into my brain. When you think in digital terms the precise capabilities of this technology become apparent.

Ramola D: You mentioned being treated to a major Voice to Skull treatment in Palo Alto. Did you experience both Hive-Mind/Synthetic Telepathy and V2K at this time?

Chris Burton: In Palo Alto, they put together a massive two-week treatment in which they brought together a large team of Voice to Skullers to play the roles of President Obama, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Marissa Mayer, Ben Affleck, Trey Parker, Dustin Hoffman, James Hetfield, Fred Armison, Kristen Wig, my sister, my cousin Joe, my dad, and two former colleagues. They imitated the voices and personalities of everyone to perfection. Some, like the Obama, Fred Armison, and Trey Parker characters spoke for hours while others, like my sister, spoke only a few words.

For two weeks straight they kept me up until 5 am in this treatment that was intended to make me believe there was an elite group of celebrities and politicians, already well acquainted with Voice to Skull and hive mind telepathy, who were taking part in a giant reveal of the technology in anticipation of letting me go. They claimed I was going to be part of the leadership team that helped determine when and where Voice to Skull would ever be used in military or the private sector, if ever. The group (I never knew exactly who was in the hive mind until they spoke) improvised elaborate skits and sang songs at night that built me up as an “insider” in their club. The skits were led by the Fred Armison, Trey Parker, and Kristin Wig characters and were performed as well as any Broadway performance. It was THAT good.

A few days into this massive treatment, they introduced Hive Mind Telepathy. The hive mind basically allows the group to suggest words while another person is speaking. It’s a lot like hearing multiple words layered together in an audio track with one coming through a little louder than the others. When more than one person thinks of the same word, the software adds weight to that word which causes it to stand out. This allows the person speaking to improvise speeches and rhymes all night long.

In order to speak in the hive you have to “think out loud,” but the hive can also read your mind and give away the entire sentence you’re about to say (if you’ve already envisioned it). I’ll talk more about that aspect of the hive a little later in the interview because it’s a functionality they mostly keep turned off because when more than one person’s entire sentence is being communicated at the same time everything becomes sort of garbled and you can’t make out what is being said.

The group had their own lingo which was made up of phrases picked out ahead of time such as “itsy bitsy teenie weenie yellow polkadot bikini” which was used instead of words like small, puny, short, etc. By using these phrases, singing songs, and rhyming sentences they created a perfect example of what hive mind “chat rooms” might look like if the technology ever became public.

Each chat room I was put into had its own “personality” (e.g. cartoonish, sensual, business-like et al.) with their own (living) rules that changed based on funny things people would say in the hive mind. For example, one of the characters, I think it was the Trey Parker, said “myself and others” instead of “me” and it caught on so everyone started using “myself and others” instead of “me” or “I” whenever they spoke.

Other times rhymes would catch on and everyone would end their sentences with something that rhymed with “balloon,” for example. The treatment went on with puppet shows (using my hands to talk to each other), masturbation “chat rooms” in which you and a “girl” would be left alone so she could take over your hand, and topic rooms where you could chat about a certain subject matter.

I could talk for hours about this experience. It was the most well scripted and well produced “show” I’ve ever witnessed and was every bit as good as any SNL performance and it went on for two weeks. (The actual skits and songs were performed at night. In the daytime the “actors” would just talk with me.)

I honestly thought I was going to be released until, of course, after two weeks of building me up, they opened the trap door and told me the real reason for the performances. I had been chipped for the purposes of experimentation and the chip, which had a small battery connected to it, and was inserted all the way into my brain stem, was running out of juice. They told me my chip’s battery had a ten-year power supply and that when it died, I would die too because it was impossible to remove or replace. They said they got everyone together and created the skits as a way of saying goodbye. They imitated my dad and sister, both of whom were too “broken up” to see me off in person??

To add to the ruse, they hit me with what I call a P wave. It’s a wave that feels like pressure is being applied to your whole body. It’s very scary and can be increased to make you think you’re dying. They started it at a one and increased it to a ten over the course of about fifteen minutes while everyone said their goodbyes. The president said I’d be buried in Arlington. When the pressure got to about a seven I could feel my organs gurgling and bubbling, which Dr. Horton called cavitation in one of her videos. I just laid down in my bed and waited for it to be over. After 15 minutes of the P wave and organ gurgling I wasn’t dead yet, so I questioned why I hadn’t died and some of them started to giggle. After this, they tortured me relentlessly for weeks which ended up putting me into the hospital for a month. I’ll talk about that later.

One additional note. During this treatment, which involved the voice of a female ex-colleague I worked with at CompuCom Systems, they revealed how they could morph a girl’s voice into a guy’s voice in mid-sentence. This is the level of voice transformation software they have and highlights the fact that everything you hear over Voice to Skull has most likely been manipulated.

Before they morphed her voice into a guy’s they had built up a treatment, over a period of four months, having to do with her being recruited into Voice to Skull to help me get through it. They built up her character over time using her exact voice and mimicked her perfectly, right down to the way she spoke (which was very quickly).

She was supposedly “monitoring” the experiment someplace with my uncle. I didn’t believe this, but then during the two-week torture in Palo Alto, she started speaking all the time, and would laugh “genuinely” at anything funny I would say while the celebrities kidded us about our “relationship.” At night, she began to take over my hand and made me masturbate. The whole situation became so intolerable that I actually called CompuCom and left a voice mail asking someone to tell her to please stop torturing me.

They had me so wrapped up in that treatment that at one point I actually texted “I love you” to her but I quickly snapped out of it, realizing just how dangerous Voice to Skull really was, and texted her right back and said I’m a Voice to Skull victim and to please call the FBI if she ever heard a voice in her head. She replied, “Please don’t ever contact me again.” This was a very important person, ex-colleague, and former client of mine so you can see the kind of damage Voice to Skull can do to personal and professional relationships when they feel like it.

Ramola D: Yes, it appears so, with this voice morphing software especially. Really, this is all absolutely extraordinary information, especially about the Broadway-show “treatment” and the way the hive-mind works, including the major takeover of your body that the constant, elaborate “chat-room” back-and-forth communication seems to facilitate. We have to discuss this further in a podcast!

Can you describe what the voices sounded like—did they sound electronic or amplified, or just like normal human voices in close range? Where exactly did they seem to be coming from?

Chris Burton: The sound is faint, as if it’s coming through a wall, but it’s perfectly intelligible. It’s different than a sound-wave which becomes muffled as soon as it travels through a door or a wall. When Voice to Skull first started I put my ear to the walls in my loft but couldn’t find a place where the sound became louder or softer.

The voices were also omnidirectional which made them impossible to localize. The sound falls somewhere between thinking “out loud” and hearing someone speaking right next to you when your ears are plugged. And you can’t filter it out the way you can with ambient noise (e.g., at a ball game or concert). You could be listening to loud music on headphones and everything they say is perfectly intelligible even though it’s faint. It literally cuts through all audible sound and your thoughts like a knife and grabs 100% of your attention.

Unless they’re hitting you with Thought Interruption or Injection, or Freezing Your Mind (which started for me in 2015), you can think clearly while the conversations are being beamed into your brain so it’s not like the “voices” are your only thoughts. Your brain is still thinking about other things, you just have this conversation going on that you can’t turn off. Another hallmark of Voice to Skull is a very high-pitched ringing (tinnitus) they transmit into your head once a week or so that usually lasts only a few seconds. Think of the sound the mortician’s camera made in Silence of the Lambs when he photographed the butterfly cocoon. It’s a super high frequency tone that, when it’s transmitted, makes you think that they’re calibrating something. I always suspected it was associated with Voice to Skull but didn’t know for sure until after year ten when they started transmitting it all the time (making it go up in pitch and down in pitch).

After eleven years of beaming only Voice to Skull voices into my head they introduced Forced Speech in Palo Alto. One day they just surprised me and said, “Hi Chris, this is Joe!” and it was my cousin Joe’s voice coming through my mouth. This means they can control your breathing, tongue, larynx and vocal chords. They can also cause your vocal chords to expand/relax and make you speak much lower than your normal voice. They can impersonate voices through you, like my cousin’s, and send heavily synthesized voices through you too. They never sent a woman’s voice through me but they did a good very good James Hatfield impersonation.

Ramola D: So that is a level of neuro-assault and takeover that is well beyond piping voices into heads via Voice to Skull—others report Forced Speech too. Did you understand by that point you were being assaulted with Black Ops military-grade neural weapons? What did you think was happening? How did you react?

Chris Burton: When I lived in my loft in Denver I thought the conversations were being transmitted from one of the units across the alley or from the parking garage a few hundred feet away. You can see how exposed my unit was in these pictures.

Chris-8Chris-10Chris-9

As I said earlier, for years they only Voice to Skulled me in my loft and in my car which made me think my neighbors were involved. When they started Voice to Skulling me everywhere I went in Denver, I realized it was something much bigger, possibly incorporating cell tower sites or even satellites. When the torture followed me to Cambodia and Vietnam I was convinced it was military technology.

The torturers are also professionally trained and very intelligent people so when you add up the expenses in just my torture den alone you’re talking about four or more people being paid at least 100K (or more) for 13 years which is over $5 million in torture labor alone. Add to that the people who don’t speak (developers and other team members) and the equipment (ground-based transmitters and/or satellites etc.), and you’re talking about a massive budget for something that no investor will ever be able to go public with. It can only be a massive classified Military/Intelligence project with subcontractors, or a private entity that’s selling the technology piece by piece to the military (both of which bypass the Common Rule which governs federally-funded experimentation on humans).

As I explained to you over the phone, this tech can take over your entire mind and nervous system to the degree that you literally become a back-seat passenger in your own body. The Hive-Mind Telepathy and Forced Speech was startling when they introduced it in Palo Alto but that was after they revealed the beginnings of the Bio-Robotization which was extremely scary. I had been tortured for 10 years straight with just voices and then out of nowhere one day they hit me with pulsed waves that violently shook individual parts of my body, one at a time.

One day, in Palo Alto, I was driving, and they told me to stop the car because they wanted to “test some waves” on me. I pulled over and they said, “Okay here’s wave number one” and immediately my left hand started moving side to side really fast, about 3-4 times per second. After shaking my hand for about five minutes, they said, “Okay, here’s the second wave,” and hit me with a frequency that made my entire left arm, from the elbow to the tip of my fingers, start whacking my chest over and over.

After five minutes of that, they announced, “Now we’re going to try out the gas-pedal wave,” and my right foot began depressing the gas pedal about 20 times. Finally, they said, “Okay, here’s the last wave” and, all of a sudden, my entire torso began thrusting itself against the steering wheel over and over for about 15 minutes. I thought they were killing me off at this point so I dried my tears, lit a cigarette, and just waited for the end.

Ramola D: That just sounds criminal. Essentially each time, it was a wave of powerful frequency or directed energy sent directly to distinct body parts—first your hand, then your entire arm, then your leg, and finally your torso—this was not neural influence or frequency sent to your brain?

Chris Burton: It was a neural frequency sent to my brain which actually had the capability of controlling all of my body parts but I didn’t know that. Up that point, I had thought Voice to Skull was just a number of individual frequencies that could send voices, influence your emotions, disrupt your mind and give an indication of whether or not you were telling the truth. Just those capabilities seemed out of this world to me.

The waves that moved my body parts in the car were pulsed so it made me think they were testing new frequencies that had particular attributes (one can shake your hand, one can shake your arm etc.).

When they revealed Forced Speech, moved my hands for the puppet shows, and took over my hand in the masturbation “chat rooms” I began to realize the technology could affect every part of my brain and nervous system. A year later they actually took over 100% of my body in a hotel room in Mexico and walked me around like a marionette! They had total control. I couldn’t move a muscle or even think for myself. They’re very good at revealing the technology in graduated steps and weaving them into your treatments (to maximize the torture). You’re always thinking to yourself, “I can’t believe they can do this” but later they show you even more.

Ramola D: And that’s the crux, isn’t it, of the CIA’s long-studied, secretive MK ULTRA intentions, as reported by John Marks and others–to create fully-controllable “assets” or spies or assassins: the Manchurian Candidate Project.

During this time period, were you experiencing other aspects that others being targeted covertly with EMF/sonic/neuro weapons have reported, such as stalking, or being hit physically with DEWs (Directed Energy Weapons)?

Chris Burton: I talked about what Michael Raines did to me in Half Moon Bay, which I think could be described as gang-stalking. But in Palo Alto, one night, they actually sent someone over to talk to me who was wearing a Manchurian Candidate Project sweatshirt.

I was sitting under the canopy at a bus stop to wait out a rainstorm, near the house where I was renting a room, and was approached by a guy I had met the week before at the same bus stop. When he got closer, one of the Voice to Skullers said, “Hey, look there’s Greg, he’s not so tough looking…” and without me saying a thing, the guy, Greg, started laughing hysterically.

Voice to Skull then remarked, “You see Chris, Greg is a friend of ours, we know people everywhere.” Greg just continued laughing and nodded his head and that’s when I looked down at his sweatshirt and couldn’t believe what I saw. It had “The Manchurian Candidate Project” embroidered on the top left chest area in red and black lettering. Greg showed me a music video on his cell phone and then got up to walk to another bus station and I just let him walk away. I honestly thought this meeting meant Voice to Skull was about to end, but it didn’t.

Of course, now I regret not stopping Greg and getting his information but Voice to Skull knows what it’s doing. They knew I didn’t have my cell phone with me and couldn’t take his picture. He (Greg) had told me the week before that he was on parole so I’m sure I could identify his mugshot (he looked like Michael Irving), but what police officer is going to believe my story.

Regarding DEWs, the torturers like to shock me unexpectedly when I’m just laying around but I wouldn’t call that being shot with electromagnetic bullets the way Dr. Horton describes it. They’re just transmitting the sensation of being shocked. They can also do this with itches and some aches and pains. I did notice that my abdomen was very warm to the touch one night when I was walking down the street in Mexico, which my Voice to Skullers took credit for.

Ramola D: Which could suggest some sort of DEWs maybe—perhaps not Pulsed Energy Projectiles (a US Navy-described weapon) as Dr. Horton describes, but remote electro-shocks like Taser hits and possibly microwave weapons.

Chris Burton: The torturers did display a technology in Palo Alto that I’m honestly afraid to talk about out of fear that I won’t be believed. I’ll touch on it a little because it is 100% true and maybe someone else has experienced the same thing.

When I walked around Palo Alto one night the torturers told me to pick a carnation that was growing on a hedge and hold it in the palm of my hand. The weather was perfect and there was no wind. Without me doing anything, the carnation rolled right off of my hand and onto the street. I picked it up and put it back on my palm, which I made as flat as possible, and it rolled right off again. It was late at night and nobody was on the street, of course, so I asked the Voice to Skullers to demonstrate it on me while I stood in the middle of the street hoping someone from an office or house would see me. Voice to Skull didn’t care and demonstrated the effect about 25 times. The carnation was literally pushed right off of my hand every time.

They also demonstrated this effect with a chicken wing a few days later, so they can push things that are heavier than carnations. Incidentally, that night was also the first time they took over my hand. I was eating at a Kabab place and they began spinning a fork I was holding in my right hand. When all of this technology is being displayed, and they’re talking through your own mouth, you tend to believe that they’re leading up to something big (like the end of the program) but it never comes.

Ramola D: Did you mention to anyone what was going on—and what happened when you spoke to your friend about it?

Chris Burton: When Voice to Skull first started I tried to tell my childhood best friend about it when he came over to my loft to hang out one night. I asked him to listen as hard as he could for the voices but he said he couldn’t hear anything. This was before the Voice to Skullers threatened my life so I talked back to them like a tough guy, honestly believing my friend believed me, and said something like, “You assholes, you think you’re bad asses don’t you?”

After an hour or so of explaining to my friend that these people were harassing me, he got up to leave saying he had to call his wife. He was gone for an hour and then returned with two Denver police officers. When I opened the door, my friend was crying and said, “I’ve known you for 23 years and I’ve never heard you talk to yourself.”

That’s when one of the officers told me, “You can come with us voluntarily or we can hog-tie you and carry you out.” I couldn’t believe he had me removed from my own house. He never seemed worried or agitated. He just sat there quietly when I was talking back to the Voice to Skullers.

Ramola D: Why do you think your own friend, who had known you for years, would call the police on you—this does not even sound normal. Had you said anything that might justify his action? Is it possible this friend had all along been a covert operative of sorts? (We are after all living in the age of non-stop Covert Ops and trillion-dollar Black Budgets.)

Chris Burton: My friend, Jason Coulter, was an MP (Military Police) in the Air Force which leads me to believe that he might have been involved. He claimed once to have seen the CIA fly dead US soldiers out of Panama and always said he was skeptical of the government, but if this was pitched as “the most important science experiment known to man,” or however it’s put to perpetrators, he’d probably buy in.

I’m his son’s godfather which makes his potential involvement all the more painful.

After he called the police, he told my sister and my parents, so pretty soon everyone in my family and friendship circle knew what had happened and started to patronize me. Because of this I spent the next seven years working on my charity fundraising companies in absolute silence about Voice to Skull in hopes of building back my credibility.

When I moved to Cambodia and went public on Facebook everyone just attributed my Facebook post to the episode in my loft. One of my best friends started telling people I had gone “bat shit crazy.” I think most of us have faced this sort of thing. You could be the most stable or accomplished or educated person in your group of friends but the second you bring up this technology you instantly become a pariah.

Ramola D: What happened afterward—was a psychiatrist involved, how did your family react?

Chris Burton: My sister came to my loft a week later and recommended I see a psychiatrist she had found. I told her absolutely not, I wasn’t going to see any doctors. I said point blank that I’m hearing living breathing people talking to me through some sort of ultrasound device and wasn’t interested in arguing with her.

That’s when Voice to Skull jumped in and said, “Chris, if you don’t see the psychiatrist we are going to kill your sister.” The very next words out of my mouth were, “Okay, I’ll go see the psychiatrist.” The death threats against me and my sister flipped my world upside down.

When something like that happens, you realize instantly that you’re on an island and nobody is going to help you. I told the psychiatrist that I never heard any voices in my head and must have been overhearing one of the neighbors outside on their balcony, but she didn’t buy it. Once an intelligent person (like my sister) crafts a narrative to a doctor about someone being mentally ill, or worse, potentially anosognostic, they and the doctor bond and the situation mutates into this altruistic mission to never let the “illness” win.

There’s nothing worse than the doggedness of an uninformed person. I simply complained about someone speaking to me through a sonic device, but because the US classified the technology it sounds to the uninformed like an alien abduction.

Ramola D: You have a highly educated family, I understand. Were they educated about ongoing military testing with electronic weapons—such as microwave weapons and neuroweapons?

chris-grad

Chris Burton: Graduation Photograph

Chris Burton: Absolutely not. My dad, who’s a retired geologist, and my uncle are former Naval officers and neither one of them will have a conversation with me about electromagnetic weapons or neuroweapons. What really upsets me is that my uncle, John Coggi, who’s retired now, went to MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and was the launch commander of the Milstar program (Milstar is a telecommunications satellite array), and is an expert in geosynchronous orbits.

When I went public in 2014 on Facebook, I wrote to him and explained that I had been tortured for the last ten years with Voice to Skull and that all of my fundraising work (over the last seven years) had been pursued to build up my credibility and protest the torture. At first, he sounded supportive and told me to go to the Physics department at the University of Colorado and check to see if any damage had been done to my body. As it turned out, however, he and my dad were working together to lure me back to the U.S. so they could lock me up involuntarily.

When I asked him what he knew about microwave weapons, he told me a person would need two PhDs to understand what waves can do and that a lot of countries are working on various wave technologies. He said that he was part of a team that discovered a wave that could penetrate the ocean 2000 feet to deliver messages to submarines but that he really didn’t know much about where the technology was today.

His son works for the Aerospace Corporation and won a very prestigious award for architecting a database that tracks all of the military’s satellites and he hasn’t said a word to me either. I think about them possibly putting me into this program all the time but just can’t allow myself to believe it. During the SNL skits in Palo Alto the torturers constantly weaved my uncle John, my other uncle Vince (who was the past president of the Los Angeles County Medical Association), and Vera Gowlland-Debbas into the treatment as if they were involved.

Ramola D: I understand you started traveling. Did the V2K follow you? Were you able to shield at all from these neuro-assaults?

Chris Burton: As I mentioned, the Voice to Skullers only spoke to me in my loft and car for three years which made me think it was being done by my neighbors, an intelligence agency using a surveillance van/truck, or gang stalkers who would follow me around. After about three years they began communicating with me every place I went in Denver.

Chris-Top of Bokor

View from Bokor

I moved to Cambodia in 2014 to write a book about the torture and the torture followed me there. I bought a bunch of books to read on my Kindle related to torture, Cambodia, the Vietnam war, and bullying, and occasionally would share interesting passages with the Voice to Skullers in my hotel room in Phnom Penh which would prompt long conversations.

Chris-bikesBuddhaMy hotel was a couple blocks away from the Russian Embassy so the torture used that as an excuse to insert a new character, Vladimir Putin, into my treatments. Whenever I stepped into the bathroom, “Vladimir” would speak to me about the Cold War. He said my uncle John was a “person of interest” to the KGB back in the ’70s and ’80s (laughing). This Vladimir spoke perfect English so it wasn’t a very good imitation.

Chris-picWhen I moved to Sihanoukville in southern Cambodia the torture went with me and built up an entire treatment about George Bush and Michelle Obama taking an interest in my case. When I rented a motorcycle and rode to Kompot and Bokor Mountain through some rural parts of southern Cambodia, the Voice to Skull talked to me the whole time.

Their voices were perfectly clear. They were commenting on every lane change I made hoping I’d believe that their “intelligence agency” was in contact with Hun Sen and his “daughter” who wanted to ride with me.

Chris-11The voices were perfectly clear in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi (and on the train from Ho Chi Minh to Hanoi). And when my uncle and dad convinced me to come back to the USA the Voice to Skullers told me on the airplane, “Chris thinks he’s coming back to Vietnam” which didn’t make any sense at the time because I had a girlfriend in Vietnam and had left half of my things there. When my dad had me locked up for the psych evaluation I realized what they meant. Fortunately, I was released after 13 days and I went back to Vietnam (with a delusional diagnosis).

Ramola D: Through this time, do you think the V2K–or the AI administering the V2K via cloned and recorded voices—was communicating with you in real time or did it sound like a recording? You’ve mentioned EEG or brain cloning, which ex-CIA/DOD scientist Robert Duncan writes about. How did V2K progress into something even more invasive?

Chris Burton: I’d say my torture is 90-95% administered by humans in real time, not AI. Unless they’re letting me type, like they are now, or watch a movie, we’re always in non-stop two-way conversation. I always test this by asking them abstract questions that requires an understanding of the words I’m using and the context of the question.

As I mentioned before, for the first ten years I was tortured with Voice to Skull conversations and then they introduced Emotion Injections, Forced Speech, Hive Mind/Synthetic Telepathy, Dream Manipulation, Image Insertion, Thought Injection/Interruption, and Bio-Robotization (which is the same thing the other Voice to Skull victims are reporting).

Now, I have a clone (researcher) who inhabits me 100% of the time. This started in 2016 after they took me over completely in the hotel room in Mexico. If you haven’t read much about Voice to Skull you probably don’t know about clones, but it’s a whole other level of torture. The clone is there, I believe, to try to influence you subliminally and help design the thinking algorithms for imperceptible thought hijacking and body movement. I honestly have no idea why they’re doing this to us, I can only comment on what they’re putting us through.

My clone’s name is John and he started torturing me in 2015 through Forced Speech in Palo Alto. Recently he has been leaving me alone during the day because I’m taking an online class but normally he’s talking to me, through my mouth, all day long (he also speaks to the other Voice to Skullers through the hive). The other Voice to Skullers still communicate with me through the hive using synthetic telepathy. At any moment, I can basically summon John and he’s right in tune with whatever I’m doing and can respond with something witty. He’ll do things like move the radio dial if he wants to change the channel or move my eyes if he wants to look at something.

Voice to Skull reveals its technology progressively, over many years, mainly because it’s a long-term program and wants to maximize every bit of the torture (and measure people’s responses to it). I also think they reveal the technology in stages to protect their “investments” because if they spoke though someone, or moved their body parts without that person having any sort of experience with Voice to Skull they’d probably run out into the street screaming and get hit by a car.

Another perspective is that they reveal the technology gradually so that it appears like the onset of some terrible mental illness but what kind of mental illness uses well known psychological torture techniques, builds up treatments, follows a protocol that protects its anonymity, verbally announces new “symptoms” like violently shaking your hands, arms, legs and torso, speaks through your mouth, stimulates you sexually, creates puppet shows with your hands, shocks different parts of your body annoyingly for fun, freezes your ability to think (but only when you’re just about to say something important on the phone or in a meeting), and eventually takes over your entire body in a hotel room and leaves you with a full time clone who inhabits your body all day long? This is what Voice to Skull victims are reporting all over the planet in the same exact sequence! It’s simply astonishing that journalists, doctors, friends and family haven’t picked up on this.

Ramola D: Yes, and this media and medical professional blackout seems to point to intelligence agency control. Those of us educated on these matters however understand that several neuro-technologies exist for remote access of the human brain – some of which are now in the public domain, some mentioned in DARPA and other military projects, some revealed by whistleblowers, but many still hidden.

As you note, Robert Beck, author of Body Electric has gone on record speaking about the inability to stop what he calls the magnetic H wave by any kind of shielding: brain entrainment with frequencies has been recorded as occurring even inside a Faraday cage. What were some of your experiences trying to limit or escape these assaults?

Chris Burton: I have to believe Robert Duncan when he says it’s extremely difficult to shield against this technology. I’ve personally experienced everything he talks about in his lectures and book so why would I not believe his statements about shielding. I don’t see them developing a technology designed to wage covert war that can simply be scanned for or shielded against. I also can’t believe the militaries and intelligence agencies involved would ever allow themselves to get caught. I’m definitely not a scientist or PhD, however, so I’ll never claim to understand how it works or argue with someone who has an opinion about shielding or the various methods by which frequencies can be transmitted.

The notion that you can just meditate or think about something else doesn’t hold water in terms of Voice to Skull. The torturers are on you 24/7 and can outlast any attempt to think about nothing or repeat the same mantra. V2K voices, Thought Interruption and Thought Injection Torture taps into the core of the brain. Each one can be applied at different intensities which, at the high end, can completely consume your mind (making it impossible to think about anything else). Once they torture you at a high intensity with electromagnetic-specific torture techniques (which are both physical and psychological) such as Thought Interruption, Thought Reflection, and many others, your brain just begins to spurt out reflexive thoughts uncontrollably and you literally become “mad” for a period of time.

The constant application of these increasingly destructive torture techniques coupled with statements like, “We’re torturing you until death do us part,” which they tell me all the time, reveals the psychopathy of the torturers and absolute hopelessness of our situations. And even though the symptoms reported by the diplomats in Cuba describe the same things I and other victims have reported (cognitive problems, word recall, ear ringing et al.) the US still refuses to acknowledge the existence of psychotronic weapons (labeling the attacks in Cuba as “sonic” to the dismay of experts who say the physics of a “sonic” attack don’t add up), which is the real nail in our coffin.

Voice to Skull victims are simply at the mercy of their torturers because there are no proven ways to shield against the attacks. Our only defense is to appeal to their humanity. It’s a prisoner of war/guard sort of relationship. The only thing that can save victims is liberation.

The Downloading of the Human Brain to a Computer

Ramola D: And let’s hope that happens soon, as soon as Americans become aware this is what the military and CIA/DIA/NSA are doing in those Special Access Above Top Secret projects, with black budgets and taxpayer money, torturing Americans to create Manchurians. Crying “National Security!” to keep it all hidden.

So it did not stop at V2K—what started to happen? How did further kinds of neuro-assaults begin to occur?

Chris Burton: They have taken me all the way to a full Manchurian Candidate takeover. As I explained earlier, the program revealed more and more of the technology, progressively, over the course of 13 years. The first ten were spent on Voice to Skull treatments but the last three have been spent dealing with the injection of emotions, bio-robotization, dream manipulation, image insertion, thought injection and interruption, hive mind telepathy, and subliminal messaging/scanning.

Once I saw the “Manchurian Candidate Project” written on Greg’s sweatshirt at the bus stop I knew I was in for a terrible journey. They warned me that they were going to take me over completely when I was staying at a hotel in Mexico back in November of last year. That was a difficult time because I couldn’t envision exactly what being “taken over” meant. Was my eyesight going to fade out? Was I going to lose consciousness? Was I going to be tossed off a balcony? Was I going to hurt someone? They built up my takeover over a period of few weeks and it was scary as hell.

When it finally happened, I was in my hotel room talking to John, my clone, about what being taken over feels like, which was the topic of conversation for the last couple of weeks, and he just went ahead and did it. I was laying on the bed when it started and John talked through the entire experience. He said, “Well, I could move your foot off the bed like this, walk you over to the door like this, turn the knob on the door like this, walk over to the chair like this, sit down, stand up, walk back to the bed and lay down, and you can’t do anything about it.”

And he was right. John took complete control of my body and I couldn’t do anything about it. I was completely paralyzed and I couldn’t think of anything except for what he was saying. Once they have your brain mapped, they can overlay what feels like a stronger electromagnetic field (like a blanket) that just completely overpowers your own. I can only describe it as feeling paralyzed but experiencing yourself walking around. You can’t control a single muscle. I couldn’t even think of relaxing my muscles. The clone just overpowers you and you do whatever he does in real-time. John could have done anything he wanted to with my body that night (and still can).

The takeover happened eight months ago. What’s very unnerving is that now I can sense John inside of me all the time. It’s like we’re sharing my mind 70/30 with me controlling 70%. I’m managing the controls but he’s there the whole time. The stage we’re at is very clear to me – imperceptible thought and body takeovers. This brings me to what I mentioned in the very beginning of the interview about the gulf between perceptible and imperceptible shrinking rapidly. This is where, I feel, they are with the technology and what my experiments are focusing on. The technology would just be a demonic possession freak show if it remained perceptible to the victim so now they’re working on making their thoughts feel more like my thoughts. This seems like the next frontier in Voice to Skull (if it hasn’t already been perfected).

In terms of what the non-militarized version of this technology can do for science someday, if they can offload a certain percentage of a person’s thinking to a computer they might be able to bypass certain abnormalities in the brain or the onset of a brain disease. This Voice to Skull “beam” that I referred to is the brain-to-computer interface that’s overlapping my thoughts and serving as my mind, at least part of the time. I can tell part of my mind is thinking at an offsite location because the way I process thoughts has changed. It’s slower, more sequential, and feels extremely limited. I’m also not being “granted access” to parts of MY cerebral cortex because I can’t do very simple math problems or spell whatsoever.

Voice to Skull has also rewritten some of my thinking algorithms just for the fun of it. For example, they’ll cause me to call up an image of a dick pic whenever I think about an old friend of mine named Brian. Brain and I are old college buddies and we’re both heterosexual and I’ve never seen his dick before. Whenever this happens they laugh so I know they wrote the algorithm on purpose. They do a lot of things like this, and worse, with your thinking, that are completely out of bounds. Let your mind wonder a bit and they’ve probably done it.

Ramola D: Is there a difference between the Brain Cloning that you report and the Hive Minding you have learned about? Are you experiencing suppression of your own self, mind, and personality in both cases?

Chris Burton: I talked about the clone, John, a little bit ago. I call him my inhabitor because that’s what having a clone inside of you feels like. It’s a lot like having someone constantly looking over your shoulder. I’m sure they could just artificially maintain this sensation but I get the feeling they’re trying to match my brain to the clone’s so we’re both experiencing the same exact thing (or as close to it as possible).

The clone is always right in tune with whatever I’m experiencing. I could be sitting in a chair thinking about whether or not the clone can wink (I’ve never been able to wink for some reason) and a second later the clone will try to wink (which he can’t do either when he’s inside of me). He’s paying attention to everything that’s happening 24/7 which basically keeps me in a state of constant fear.

Recently, the Voice to Skullers have been feeding me a lot of thoughts that kind of swirl around in my head with some being more noticeable than others. They’re not instantaneous and lightning quick by any means. When I say thoughts, I really mean words. In my case, they haven’t injected or inspired entire actions yet, like “walking over to the fridge to eat the leftovers,” or “going outside to the car to grab the bag you left in the back seat.” This is what I consider to be a complete thought.

I have, however, heard of the hypnosis Millicent has experienced and am worried that I’m going to be used for experiments that go a lot further than that. I honestly believe things are not going to end well for me and the other Manchurian Candidates.

The hive mind does not allow you to think with someone else’s intelligence. It’s also very hard to think deeply when you’re in the hive. We all know the feeling of “staring off into space.” That’s the state of mind you’re in when you’re in the hive communicating. None of our hive-mind conversations are deeply intelligent. You can piece together an intelligent-sounding poem or rhyme which, to an observer, might come across as intelligent, and you can be quick-witted, but it’s really hard to tap into anything except your basic vocabulary when you’re in the hive.

The hive can read your mind. If a person envisions an entire sentence in their head, before they speak it by “thinking out loud,” the hive can deliver the sentence to the group ahead of time, very quickly, in a way that feels almost subliminal. As I said earlier, they don’t always turn this functionality on because it tends to garble everyone’s thoughts together and you can’t make anything out. But when you’re in the hive with only 2-3 people, and one of them thinks of a short sentence, you can definitely make out the sentence before you hear it delivered “out loud” by the person speaking.

Ramola D: What exactly do you think this hive-mind team is trying to do?

Chris Burton: The torturers use the hive mind, and the words it suggests, about 95% of the time now. I think it’s a way to kind of de-individualize themselves and act psychopathic for their own enjoyment. It’s extremely juvenile but they do it so the victims know they’re “crazy” which is essential when trying to motivate a suicide. Up until last week most of their recent tortures had do with eliciting my thoughts. They would swirl around a bunch of barely perceptible thoughts in my head and see if/how I respond. These thoughts are usually pretty dirty so you’re always trying to change the subject in your head. But now they’re all taking part in a full-blown effort to motivate a suicide claiming that I have to die now that I went public again.

Every few days they keep me up until 4:00 am using a torture technique I call the Breathing Torture. This is when they say a specific word or phrase every single time I exhale. They also torture me a lot with Thought Reflection which I think is an AI-administered torture. It automatically responds, lightning fast, to any thought you have with a specific phrase or word, or repeats (reflects) the same thought (sometimes in another voice) right back into your head before you’ve finished it. The Breathing Torture and Thought Reflection Torture are usually paired together because the Breathing Torture forces your brain to respond by saying something like, “why are you doing this” which sparks the Thought Reflection torture. It creates a vicious loop of thoughts and reflections that can happen multiple times a second for as long as they feel like doing it.

Another electromagnetic specific torture technique they’ve created is to speak very slowly (like the slow-speaking sloth in Zootopia). This also elicits thoughts because your brain tries to fill in the…. very….long….pauses….. with what you think the torturers are going to say next. These thoughts can then be reflected back at you instantly, as I described above. Sometimes they just use the Sloth Torture for hours which is pretty agonizing but it’s nothing compared to Chanting or Non-Stop Thought Reflection (which have a very high probability of death).

Revealing These Torture Programs is Civilization’s Last Chance to Reel In Weaponized Neuroscience

Ramola D: Do you think the end-game of all these many brain tortures is total Neuro-Takeover and Bio-Robotizing of people so these agencies can simply go in and take over people’s brains at will—and use their bodies to covertly execute any kind of action or crime they wish?

Chris Burton: Yes, I do. I think the generals, or whoever makes the decisions to hurt people with exotic weaponry, wanted to know how far the technology could be taken and that’s what they’re getting. We’re all stuck in these programs for decades until, like Dr. Horton said, the leadership of these agencies/programs is removed, or we kill ourselves like so many TIs have.

As I mentioned before, I have experienced a complete body and mind takeover and it was terrible. It leaves you with the feeling that it could happen at any moment and you’re helpless to stop it. I described how Voice to Skull voices slice through everything and are impossible not to process, but with thought injection and body take-overs they’re forcing thoughts into your head and activating muscle movements that you can’t block or resist. Once they reach the point at which they can elicit entire actions that feel like your own, there will be no more ethical boundaries to cross in this science and we’ll never know, as individuals, who we ever were. Our personalities could just become dry and humorless like the engineers who developed the technology and we’d never know the difference.

The torturers tell me every day that the program will never end, so the end game for victims like me is suicide or living with the daily torture and fear that the next Manchurian Candidate takeover is going to send them to prison. The capabilities of this technology surpass everything in the US’s arsenal including thermonuclear bombs because it’s Stealth, has unlimited range, and leaves no marks.

This means they’re well known to the highest levels of government which means their use should have reflected the core values of the military and our country and never should have been used, but they were. The US chose to spend billions of dollars innovating offensive DEWs instead of developing defenses for its citizens and that’s all I need to know about West Point and what we term the “best and brightest.”

Voice to Skull is a money tree and the more they innovate its offensive capabilities the more they can fertilize the tree by advancing the notion that the best defense is a good offense. Like electroshock and water torture before them, neuroweapons will become distributed throughout the world and all of the tortures perfected in these experiments will render humanitarian organizations helpless when it comes to identifying and helping victims. Simply put, the longer these organizations stand on the sidelines and don’t say a word about the development of these weapons, the more useless they will become in the future to all of humanity.

My own experience in this program has proven to me that psychotronic/neuro weapons have already been innovated past the point at which they can serve, in military terms, as lethal and non-lethal strategic deterrents against attack by state and non-state actors (if they were publicized).

These weapons can already paralyze your mind and body and control/orchestrate every single muscle movement (including the heart) from thousands of miles away at light speed.

What these programs are doing now is extending the “endpoints” for non-consensual (neuro)science so far out into the future, utilizing the protections only top-secret classification provides, that the work itself, in addition to the already-deployed delivery system (transmitters and satellites), now constitutes an existential threat to the “souls” of everyone on the planet.

By continuing this arbitrarily defined pursuit to control human consciousness through software code that runs exactly the same way on everyone’s brain, the government is creating plutonium in the form of software that can wipe out the evolutionary traits and nurture that make our minds unique such as personality, intelligence, character, and decision making.

These systems, that can blast brain-altering electromagnetic frequencies anywhere on the globe, have already been deployed–which means the revealing of these torture programs represents the last chance civilization has to reel in weaponized neuroscience.

Part Three: The US/Globalist Voice to Skull Program as Death Camp for Victims: Not Socially Permissible Military/Intelligence Technology but Barbaric DOD/CIA Murder/Torture Weapon & Crime Against Humanity

Ramola D: Everything you report, Chris, about this Brain Control/Body Takeover program and your continuing experience of Guantanamo-style Death-Camp Captivity and Torture is seriously concerning and truly heart-rending. I really hope human rights advocates and caring humanity of every profession reading this wake up and start taking action to protect you and all Voice to Skull victims immediately.

I know there is more to this story you wish to convey. You have spoken about suicide ideation in the face of this intensive, continuous torture. You have spoken about your inability to resist the takeover of your motor movements. Is it really impossible to resist?

Chris Burton: With regard to the full body and mind takeover I described in the hotel, resisting doesn’t work. It’s like trying to resist a taser. You can’t resist a stronger electrical charge. That’s what it feels like. Your eyes are working, your ears are working, and your heart is pumping, but everything else is paralyzed.

In Palo Alto, when they hit me in the car with the four waves that shook my body parts, I could clench my fists but couldn’t stop the movement in my arms and torso. After the experience in the car they started hitting me with Thought Injection/Interruption and Chanting Torture which left me with no choice but to threaten suicide.

One of the ways I threatened suicide was by walking 1000 feet down a railing attached to the edge of a four-story building. I wanted Voice to Skull to take my threat seriously and fear for my safety so I went to the same spot every night for a week and promised to add 100 feet to the distance I had walked the previous night unless they stopped the torture. When we got to day five I had promised to walk 1000 feet (I had doubled it from the night before). Normally, when I got up on the railing, I’d shake like a leaf but when I stood on it that night I felt them extending my arms out straight beside me. That helped me balance and I completed the walk, but they continued the torture.

A few days later I dangled myself off of a cliff in Half Moon Bay, and a day later waded out into a dangerous part of the breaks near Mavericks (which are the largest waves in North America). The waves were crashing so hard it would have been instant death if I had continued so I came back to shore. Two days after that they started chanting non-stop which led to the cruelest thing I’ve experienced, so far.

When the Voice to Skullers chant a phrase nonstop you think it’s never going to end because they have AI and chatterbots that can be programmed to continue the chant forever. Chanting is akin to screaming into your ear. It will literally drive you insane or push you to suicide if it doesn’t stop. It crosses that line that makes life not worth living anymore. Voice to Skull is always trying to push you over that line. That night they were especially mean and chanted for hours and hours, non-stop. I had already put myself in some very dangerous situations that might have resulted in an accidental death but the chants were meant to provoke something more.

They pushed me so hard with the chanting that I finally broke down and exclaimed that if they didn’t stop I was going to self-immolate. I had lived in Vietnam and was well aware of Thích Quảng Đức’s protest against the South Vietnamese and thought that this threat might be taken seriously.

They continued with the chant so I drove back to Half Moon Bay at about 10:00 pm and bought a plastic gas can and a gallon of gasoline. I drove to a deserted beach and found a secluded area about 25 meters from the ocean. I was wearing shorts and a T-shirt and a hooded North Face jacket and brought a large beach towel which I wrapped around my waist and tucked in. I kept telling the Voice to Skullers out loud to stop the chanting but they kept going. I unscrewed the cap to the plastic container and poured about ¾ of a gallon of gas on the towel, encircling my body completely. I grabbed a lighter in my right hand and held it half an inch from the gas soaked towel and told them again to stop the chanting but they continued. I wasn’t going to light myself on fire, I was just setting up a standoff.

All of a sudden, I felt my right hand begin to move on its own. And before I could think to reach over with my other hand and stop it, my right thumb depressed the lighter and I instantly burst into flames. I frantically tried to unwrap the towel from my body, which was blazing like a furnace, and burned both of my hands badly pulling it off. The gas had soaked through the towel onto my legs and my behind and I immediately felt the flames searing my skin as they rose from my feet to my waist. I ran toward the water but slipped and fell and remember thinking that if I fell again I’d be dead. I put myself out in the water and the torture went silent. I screamed and called them mother&%&$* over and over but they remained silent. It was pitch black outside so it took me 20 minutes to make my way through the brush to my car because I couldn’t see the dirt path.

I drove myself to the nearest gas station and asked the guy behind the counter to call an ambulance. I went into shock and was airlifted to the burn unit in Santa Clara. The doctors stabilized me and I underwent four skin graft surgeries. I was burned over 40% of my body. The torture remained silent for the entire month I was in the hospital and for the two months I spent in Arizona recovering at my parent’s house. But, as soon as my parents left to drive back to Colorado, where they spend the summers, the torture started up again. The second the garage door closed and my parents drove away the torturers started talking again!

Chris-13

Chris Burton: “My whole bottom half looks like this.”

The conversations were, of course, very uncomfortable. I was basically talking to my kidnappers who tried to kill me. We engaged in small talk about whether or not Voice to Skull should ever be used as a military technology against an ISIS or Al Nusra sort of organization but at this point I basically knew I was going to be killed in this program, and have felt that way ever since.

Just to wrap up my story, the Voice to Skullers began torturing me relentlessly at my parent’s house so I jumped in the car and drove to Ensenada telling Voice to Skull that I would rather die in the ocean than at home. I found a part of the beach where I could go undetected at night and waded into the water. The first night I did this John (my clone) spoke up and told me to get back to shore. I listened to him and walked back, but they kept talking.

When the Voice to Skullers just talk, you feel the will to survive, but when they start torturing you with non-stop Thought Injection/Interruption or Chanting, you snap and will do anything to escape. This is what I believe “breaking someone” means in a Voice to Skull torture experiment. If you were strapped down in a bed you’d go insane but because you’re being tortured remotely, you automatically think about suicide. The torturers enjoy keeping you on the razor’s edge (of suicide ideation).

The torture in Ensenada continued, so a couple nights later I went back to the same spot to threaten suicide again. This time I swam out past the breaks into the deep water. I floated on my back and told Voice to Skull that this was it, I wasn’t going anywhere until they stopped torturing me. John and a female torturer I call Deborah continued talking so I stayed in the ocean trading off between floating and treading water. After about 30 minutes I was getting really tired. I had been confined to a bed for the last four months recovering from my burns and was in no condition to be out in the ocean.

I told the Voice to Skullers I was going back to the hotel to strangle myself instead but realized the shoreline was now ¼ mile away. The current had pulled me out a lot further than I had realized. I swam as hard as I could but wasn’t making any progress. My shoulders were beginning to cramp up and I realized I was going to die. Torture became silent again just like they were after I was set on fire.

I just remember bobbing up and down in the water trying to catch my breath and thinking that this was it, I had been really screwed in life. I thought about just sinking but decided to give the beach one more shot and swam as hard as I could. Somehow, I made it to a sandbar where my feet could touch the bottom and my mouth could take in air. I rested for a while and then continued swimming. When I made it to shore John spoke up and said, “Chris, I promise I will never do that to you again.”

They spent a month building up the Full Body Takeover, as I described earlier, but until recently hadn’t tortured me with unstoppable Thought Injection/Interruption/Reflection and Chanting. Now, they’re back at it with Thought Injection and Reflection claiming that I’m going to be tortured to death for speaking publicly.

A couple weeks ago they kept me up talking about the military’s plan to enact regime change in the worst spots in the world because they don’t want EM weapons to fall into the wrong hands. We talked about the sonic attack in Cuba and they said it was part of Obama’s plan to eventually expose the technology. A week ago, we talked about imperceptible Thought Injection for hours and they demonstrated some injections that felt almost natural. As I explained earlier, when they take your mind or body over completely, or inject thoughts, it feels foreign, but they’re moving closer to imperceptible thoughts and may have already perfected it for all I know.

Ramola D: These are just devastating reports. Essentially, this brain-clone set you on fire and tried to kill you—in a way that would translate to the uninformed world as suicide.

Imperceptible Thought Injection suggests the horrific possibility of Complete Mind Manipulation and destruction of a person’s innate self.

I’d like to contextualize these extreme Mind Control projects a bit: When looking at other incidences of neuro-hacking, such as Rohinie Bisesar’s case, or Esteban Santiago, or Aaron Alexis, or Myron May, it is difficult not to see the correlations between the CIA’s historic MK ULTRA programs of neuro-experimentation with EMFs and RHIC-EDOM, and the current-day reported incidences of V2K and bio-robotizing as being headed in the same sinister direction—the complete takeover of individuals for nefarious use as terrorists, stabbers, mass shooters, and publicly-dismissed “psychiatric cases.” What is your thinking on this?

Chris Burton: I sense strongly, by the tone of his testimony, that Myron May was Voice to Skulled. I also suspect that Esteban Santiago and Aaron Alexis were too, but without hearing them speak about the details of their experiences, I can’t be sure.

I emailed Santiago’s public defender and provided him with a high-level overview of my experiences and told him that if Santiago mentions anything about being “taken over” I can provide detailed testimony about similar technology being demonstrated on me. He never wrote back.

As much as I feel sorry for Myron May, I can’t condone what he did. I’ve suffered through hell for 13 years and am burned over 40% of my body and never thought about killing an innocent person. I think he was deeply religious and honestly felt that by shooting people he was just sending them to heaven early.

Rohinie Bisesar sounds schizophrenic to me but that’s just my opinion. Schizophrenia is primarily a thinking disorder and Raizel Robin’s Toronto Life article reports that Bisesar’s boyfriend thought that Bisesar’s research projects didn’t make any sense to him and even after he warned her she still turned them in. The article also said Bisesar called out her boss in front of her coworkers stating that she could do a better job. When you’re Voice to Skulled and your brain is being frozen or your thoughts are being interrupted, you know 100% what’s going on and wouldn’t willingly turn in something that didn’t meet your standards. Bisesar turned in her research reports believing she was doing a great job. That’s a mental illness in my opinion but nobody can know for sure. That’s why it’s so important to give victims of EM assaults a chance to explain themselves thoroughly.

Voice to Skull, however, can still completely discombobulate you during an interview and make you sound seriously mentally ill which is why developing defensive technologies and shielding solutions is so important. I live daily with the knowledge that my clone could take me over at any minute and hurt someone else. That part of this Voice to Skull/Manchurian Candidate torture would figure into anyone’s live or die equation. The fact that trials like Bisesar’s and Santiago’s are taking place without judges putting their foot down and demanding information about these technologies shows how terribly uninformed, misled, callous, or perhaps compromised our justice department is.

Ramola D: I should tell you I covered Rohinie Bisesar’s case fairly closely, through contact with Mind Control activists in Toronto who visited Rohinie in jail and spoke to her lawyer–whom I also communicated with; I also published a letter from Rohinie to one of the activists there, and do indeed think she is not experiencing schizophrenia but is a victim of Black Mind Control Ops, possibly through a BCI chip and RHIC-EDOM or radio hypnosis—which could also have influenced her research paper actions. She has reported V2K—not as you report it, extended treatments, etc., but a distinctive voice. She has reported externally-pumped-in thoughts—and it is possible she is a victim of Bio-Robotizing or body takeover. (My articles on her can be found here.)

What her case and yours demonstrate to me is that there seem to be various dark and sinister neuro-technologies being used by American military/intelligence agencies on people, all unethical and inhumane.

Chris Burton: You could very well be right Ramola. Without a full accounting of these programs and the people in them there will never be justice for victims of crimes where the use of electromagnetic weapons is suspected. This is why organized stalking and Voice to Skull victims have to come forward now and document their experiences. The person I mentioned in the beginning of the interview, Michael Raines, would not be able to pass a lie detector test if he were asked about the interrogation that took place at his house (which I believe is connected to the Voice to Skull program). These are starting points for investigators and journalists who are truly interested in exposing this atrocity.

In terms of the bigger picture, I’ve come to terms with dying early because of Voice to Skull. During my trip to S.E. Asia, I learned a lot about the wholesale slaughter of civilians by the USA in Vietnam and Cambodia (as a result of the CIA’s removal of Sihanouk). Even Ken Burns’ PBS documentary about The Vietnam War (a mostly American point of view) mentioned the US’s Phoenix Project and the 20,000 people it tortured and killed.

I’ve been to S-21 (Tuol Sleng Prison) and one of the killing fields in Cambodia and have visited the War Remnants Museum in Vietnam. Every other person I met in Cambodia lost a close family member to the Khmer Rouge. One fourth of their population literally had their throats cut because of the CIA’s decision to meddle in their country’s affairs.

The US’s secret bombing campaign in Laos and Cambodia destroyed so much farm land that farmers had no way of supporting themselves so they joined the Khmer Rouge (which only had 2000 members before the bombing began).

The USA continued implementing devastating sanctions against Cambodia and Vietnam for decades after the war too, crippling their economies, and then left SE Asia to clean up the unexploded ordinance and land mines.

Yes, the USA spent two billion dollars on programs to help clean up these areas but tell that to the families of the over 65,000 people who have been murdered by these silent killers. The USA also used cluster bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan and sells them in huge quantities to Saudi Arabia (which drops them on Yemen). Israel uses them too.

America is an absolute monster when it comes to developing and using exotic military weaponry. It’s part of this country’s ethos.

Until I read about Vietnam, Cambodia and Arab nationalism I just didn’t know how backward US foreign policy is and how dark and sinister our intelligence agencies can be. Now I know because I’m a VICTIM of the United States’ Military Industrial Complex’s “classified” psychotronic weapons arms race which is really a scumbag-led money grab that will never end until the very last scientist and/or military officer has cashed out on his/her own lethal or non-lethal directed-energy or neuroweapons-related business plan.

Ramola D: There is also the very large issue you have brought up of subtle neural influences permitted by the use of precise frequencies—which means ALL of humanity can be influenced on a mass scale in this way.

There is information today on the different brain frequencies related to different sleep and waking states, as well as to different emotions, and bio-resonance of different organs—some of this from the Air Force Dosimetry Handbooks.

Remote access and influence of human attention, emotion, and bodily organs is now possible through the use of specific frequency-pulses. Is it possible to now change human personality and behavior through remote neural influence?

Chris Burton: Yes, this research is definitely all about frequencies that relate to various brain states and it’s a shame America classified the most important parts of the research. There’s a good paper on Cheryl Welsh’s website, Mindjustice.org, called “Misled and Betrayed” that talks about research into the bio-electric brain.

I’m not a scientist so I won’t talk about the physics or neuroscience involved in Voice to Skull but at a basic level it’s important victims read about the bio-electric brain (where evoked potentials come from) and understand what brain states are.

The activity of neurons generates electric currents and when large groups of neurons, called neural ensembles, synchronize, they create oscillations that can be measured on an EEG. These oscillations equate to various brain states which Voice to Skull is manipulating all the time. These fluctuating frequencies of oscillations are categorized into general bands, Gamma, Beta, Alpha, Theta, Delta, plus Mu, Sigma (sleep), and Sensorimotor rhythm, and have been shown to correlate with emotional responses, motor control, and a number of cognitive functions including information transfer, perception, and memory. Neural oscillations, in particular Theta activity, are extensively linked to memory function and coupling between theta and gamma activity is considered to be vital for memory functions including episodic memory. (Brain Entrainment and Neural Oscillation information here from Wikipedia.)

By experimenting with various frequencies that disrupt these brain states and torturing me for 13 years they’ve erased 80-90% of my long-term memory and my short-term/working memory has been degraded so much that when I read, I can’t remember the sentence before the one I’m on. I also can’t remember words, do simple math problems, or spell, and I was a finance major in college. It’s almost as if parts of my cerebral cortex have been removed.

The non-stop “binded” conversations the Voice to Skullers transmitted into my brain clearly changed my brain and, according to Shane O’Mara, the author of Why Torture Doesn’t Work: The Neuroscience of Interrogation, psychological and physical torture destroys people’s memory so I’ve definitely suffered brain damage as a result of being put into this program.

There’s no doubt the torture has changed my personality too. It’s sad because I was the class clown of my senior class in high school and used to be very funny and loquacious and intelligent before Voice to Skull started. Funny things to say would just come naturally to me and I always had something interesting to add to the conversation but not anymore. I’m as dull as it gets. I was also extremely entrepreneurial with two or more business ideas always in the works but now all I think about is the torture. I have practically no memories of ANYTHING left in my brain including everything I experienced and learned in high school and college, and every single book or article I’ve ever read.

With regard to some other ways I’ve experienced remote neural influence: At work in Palo Alto they froze my brain in very important situations in specific meetings, right before I was about to speak, or when I was on the phone with certain people. One time I was saying goodbye to someone, I said, “Okay, I’ll give you a call yesterday” instead of “tomorrow.”

They’re literally picking and choosing when to attack me based on the circumstance. For example, they’re allowing me to write these responses to your interview questions, and they allow me to write the Employment Services section every year for the University of Colorado’s Colorado Business Economic Outlook, but other times, especially when I was trying to write in Vietnam, or when I was working in Palo Alto, they’d attack me just for the hell of it and make writing impossible. Whenever they did this it would take me 30-45 minutes to write a short email. Other times they’d let me fire off emails as fast as I could type. There’s no rhyme or reason to the timing of their attacks except to censor and embarrass me.

Ramola D: Many of us know by now that an electronic or electromagnetic control grid is in place–a combination of HAARP, GWEN towers, cell-towers, satellites, smart meters, ground-based and air-based sensing platforms, remote sensing systems, RFIDs, portable energy weapons, GPS tracking, biometric surveillance, television programming, nanotechnology, “smart dust.”

And Mind Control effects have been historically applied using these and other means like TV programming. From your experience—which has opened you to a very dark and covert Black Ops world which those Americans mesmerized by Psy-Op’ing mainstream media are completely unaware of–what can you add to this awareness?

Chris Burton: I don’t think a victim of a neuroweapon attack, which is transmitting brain frequencies, will ever be able to tell the difference between a chip, satellite, HAARP, GWEN towers, cell towers, ground-based, air-based, or portable transmission device. As I mentioned, everything that has been demonstrated on me felt as if it were coming from a single beam that is bouncing a signal through me, off the ground, and right back to a receiver. I know I’m thinking through a Brain to Computer Interface now because my thinking is all word-based and sequential instead of quick and idea-based.

The story I shared about Voice to Skull inserting the picture of a dick whenever I think about my friend Brian represents pretty well what “thinking” on Voice to Skull is like. When I think really hard I can recall a few distant memories but usually I’m only being served by the computer very simplified or selected ones. When I think about my elementary school I can only recall the same 3 memories and when I think of my sister, I can only recall a couple pictures of her. She and I are four years apart and went to the same schools together, including college, and have many of the same friends.

Ramola D: Truly wrenching to hear that. It suggests these Black Ops neuroscientists running the Voice to Skull/Manchurian program—and probably lots of other mass mind control projects on all of us—have figured there is opportunity for different levels of control of the human brain and the human body—controlling states of consciousness, controlling thoughts, impulses, actions, even controlling discrete bodily movements and whole-body movement.

What agency do you think humans have left—what can people do today to resist this obvious kind of Mind-Control and Body-Control?

Chris Burton: As I said, you can’t resist being taken-over but you can recognize when it’s happening. That is going to change if they continue working toward Imperceptible Take-Overs. Like sequencing the genome, the time it takes for these groups to “model” a person’s brain has to be decreasing rapidly which means with data science and supercomputers they can probably take-over someone’s entire body and mind almost instantaneously very soon, if they can’t already.

I can’t imagine a use for this technology unless it’s to stop a murder in progress. Voice to Skull and I talk all the time about the ethics of using technology like this and they pretend that they’re against it (while they’re torturing me). They’ve already crossed all of the moral and ethical lines enshrined in the Constitution to protect against this sort of treatment, violated CAT, and broken the Nuremberg Code, so I don’t have a lot of hope for anyone who might find themselves someday on a Targeted-Individual list.

I could have been put into this program because of my company, my uncle’s work in the military/aerospace industry, or my cousin’s mother-in-law’s work with Palestine and the Arab League. Take your pick. What I always thought were major accomplishments in my family and extended family turned out to be reasons for putting me on a Targeted-Individual list.

Maybe some of the Voice to Skullers are doing this to further science and provide the USA with the best weaponry on the planet, but they did it as part of a Mengele/Iishi-like non-consensual experiment.

My torturers simply enjoy torturing me which means they’re either psychopaths being held down by a certain set of rules (intended to preserve my mind for experimentation), or they’re psychologists like Mitchell and Jessen who are just torturing for money.

Certainly, there are good people like Karen Stewart working for our intelligence agencies but they aren’t working at the highest levels. That’s the problem with a captured classified program like this. There’s a “warrior class,” as Karen Armstrong refers to in her book Fields of Blood, that exists in the U.S. military and intelligence circles now, and it’s not going anywhere, and because politicians are treated like celebrities they certainly don’t want to risk their fame by speaking out and risking their “legacies.”

Voice to Skull is really the culmination of everything that exists in America right now. Our generals, politicians and CEOs are beholden to their own financial interests, and the interests of a financial community that refuses to allow anything to “rock the boat.” And the press is nowhere to be found after having been captured by the deep state (NYTimes) or intimidated into silence, or fed just barely enough bread crumbs by US officials to pay the bills.

We’re simply living in a time in human history when the United States lied to and sold out its citizens in return for a Cadillac psychotronic weapons system that will continually be developed and never be acknowledged publicly (how could they at this point). They’ve created a Soviet-era psycho prison called Targeted Individuals where genuine cases involving crimes against humanity quickly dissipate into suspicions of “mental illness.”

As long as they don’t create a noticeable spike in the statistics (death rates and mental illnesses) they can add thousands of people to the psycho-prison year after year and nobody is going to know. This is the United States of America my family, the Burtons, helped to build dating all the way back to the revolutionary war.

Certainly, there’s the potential that psychotronic weapons might be used by terrorist organizations, as Bob Beck demonstrated at the Denny’s restaurant near his house, but the USA is developing these weapons far beyond anything that could be considered an offensive countermeasure. I feel they’re already at the point where they can take people over imperceptibly, at least for short periods, so what’s next? How many more Tis need to die?

Defensive measures would involve scanning for these frequencies in every part of the country, not pouring everything into offensive uses. Russia has federal laws against electromagnetic weapons, the US does not. That’s done precisely in order to protect users of the technology while they continue to innovate it. Title 18 of the U.S. Code makes reference to directed-energy weapons only once, positioning them as WMDs, stating “any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life” is a WMD.

But psychotronic/frequency weapons operate at the level of a cell phone signal which is not dangerous. And with regard to “dangerous devices” in the U.S. Code, I don’t think we’ll ever see a court case that determines HAARP, cell sites/towers, or classified satellites are “dangerous” unless a whistleblower comes forward. We need legislation that outlaws dangerous frequencies and electromagnetic energy specifically.

Ramola D: That sounds like a vitally important goal for all of us. Any other positive ways to resist, oppose, challenge, and terminate this invasive Neuro-Take-over of human societies, do you think?

Chris Burton: I think victims are completely at the mercy of their torturers. The only reason why my torture decreased recently is because I almost died twice threatening suicide, but the other day they tortured me all night long before I had to go to work so I’m definitely not optimistic about my situation.

You can’t resist anything they do during the experiments. You’re in their possession. Most torturers and victims have built some sort of relationship over time which could affect the Voice to Skullers’ willingness to torture them all day. Victims need to do whatever they’ve discovered reduces the torture. There is no magic formula. Victims need to create YouTube videos and speak out (anonymously or not).

I’m planning to launch a website for Voice to Skull victims called V2Kvictims.org which I plan to launch in the next month or so. It’s going to focus on identifying as many Voice to Skull victims as possible and itemizing their experiences in the hopes of identifying the same patterns I’ve been talking about in the interview. Hopefully members of the press and the medical establishment will start looking at the SIMILARITIES in all of our stories and begin thinking more critically about our claims.

Ramola D: As we close, we should mention you are embarking on a new career currently. You’ve said that to some extent, you are able to resist such complete takeover of your brain as would disallow language and communication. What is the trajectory that has brought you here?

Chris Burton: After I was tortured at work at Lucid Motors (in Menlo Park), lit on fire on the beach, and then left to die in the water in Ensenada, I decided to write up a YouTube testimony (5 hours) and go public in a big way (again) on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. This pretty much ruined my chances of ever getting another job in the recruiting industry. The torture was so extreme at work that I honestly don’t think they would ever let me work again, at least in America.

Victims like me are caught in a real Catch 22 between protecting our jobs and going public to bring awareness to the issue and our stories. I’m embarking on a new career now which I don’t want to share because it’s my last chance at making a living. I feel so terrible for victims who have done similar things and are homeless or jobless now. We literally have to make a choice between informing the public (and future generations) about these terrible technologies or trying to live out our terrible lives in silence, hoping we can survive the torture.

Ramola D: What advice would you give to physicians, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, neuroethicists—and other educated professionals unaware or uninformed about current-day neuro/EMF targeting, non-consensual neuro-experimentation, and current-day MK ULTRA?

What advice might you give lawmakers and legislators—how much at risk are their own selves and families and why should they step forward and start protecting humanity from this New Age of already-pervasive but potentially-devastating technological tyranny?

Chris Burton: Only one psychiatrist has published a paper mentioning psychotronic weapons in a medical journal. Dr. Muhammad Gadit, who’s a clinical professor of psychiatry at Memorial University in Newfoundland, published a paper called “Terrorism and Mental Health: The Issue of Psychological Fragility” in the Journal of Pakistan Medical Association. Other than his paper, there are no academic sources of information about these weapons. The American Psychological Association has zero information about this technology in their PsycNET database which is a travesty. They have four articles from Dr. Muhammad but not the one mentioning psychotronic weapons.

Once you read more about the APA and its partnership with the military you’ll understand why they haven’t published anything about the dangers of sonic or psychotronic weapons. The military employs more psychologists than any other institution in America.

As long as there are no peer-reviewed articles published in medical journals about the dangers of psychotronic weapons, there’s zero chance someone in the medical community or mainstream media will publish a story about them. Instead, they’ll reference studies like Lorraine Sheridan’s about group-stalking.

Psychologists, psychiatrists, bioethicists, and neuroethicists need to publish information in medical journals about the psychological and physiological dangers of sonic weapons like the LRAD or Israel’s SCREAM especially now that we know what happened in Cuba. After reading the patents, FOIAs, and other articles that reference sonic weapons I’d suspect any self-respecting academic, psychologist/psychiatrist or bio/neuroethicist would be able to publish something that could begin to serve as a backbone for other articles related to psychotronic weapons. That’s what we need. Once this interview is published I’ll do my very best to communicate the issue to as many journalists and professors as possible. I hope your readers and the listeners will do the same!

Ramola D: Chris, thank you for this detailed and ground-breaking interview, and for sharing your story with the world. Let’s hope it resonates across continents and compartments alike and that people of conscience will step forward instantly in courage, to take action for you and for all humanity.

RELATED:

Torture Techniques: (Pdf of Chris Burton’s Torture Techniques Document, Demonstrating Connections Between KGB Torture, CIA Torture via Kubrick and HRETM Manuals, Guantanamo/USAF SERE Torture, and Voice to Skull Torture. 

Podcast Series with Chris Burton:

Report #22: Chris Burton –  Part 1: IT Success and Neuro-Experimentation, V2K

Report #27, Chris Burton, Part 2 – Voice to Skull is Classic CIA Torture

Report #28, Chris Burton, Part 3 – Beyond V2K: Manchurian Candidate Program and Brain Control

Techno Crime Fighters Forum, Episode 30: Voice to Skull, Living Manchurian Project

Public Domain Awareness of Existence and Usage of Brain Technologies Today

Hacking the Human Brain: The Next Domain of Warfare/Chloe Diggins and Clint Arizmendi/Wired, 12/11/2012

This is Your Brain. This is Your Brain as a Weapon./Tim Requarth/Foreign Policy, September 2015

On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Light of Mind Invasive Technology/Carole Smith/Journal of Psycho-Social Studies, 2003

Intrusive Brain Reading Surveillance Technology: Hacking the Mind/Carole Smith/Dissent Magazine, Summer August 2007-2008

Information related to Covert Military/USAF/Navy Electromagnetic Weapons and Neuroweapons Testing

Misled and Betrayed: How US Cover Stories are Keeping a Cold War Weapon and Illegal Human Testing a Secret/Cheryl Welsh, Torture, Asian and Global Perspectives, Volume 2, Issue 2, June-August 2013

Robert Duncan, Regarding 6/10 NYT Article on Gang-Stalking & Targeted Individuals: “When Weapons Are “Field Tested” They Need To Be Very Secretive”/Ramola D/The Everyday Concerned Citizen/June 11, 2016

Electronic Weapons, Radio Frequency Radiation, Remote Manipulation of the Human Nervous System|New World Order Weapon Ban. Open Letter to the European Commission/Mojmir Babacek/Global Research, April 13, 2017

US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights|A Study of the History of US Intelligence Community Human Rights Violations and Continuing Research in Electromagnetic Weapons/Peter Phillips, Lew Brown, and Bridget Thornton/December 2006/Sonoma State University, Project Censored, Media Freedom Foundation

Evidence for Military Development of Synthetic Telepathy/V2K/Microwave Hearing

Bio-Effects of Selected Non-Lethal Weapons/Dept. of the Army, US Army Intelligence and Security Command (USAINSCOM)/Declassified on FOIA Request in 2006

Synthetic Telepathy and the Early Mind Wars/Dr. Richard Alan Miller, 2001

Microwave Bioeffect Congruence With Schizophrenia/John J. McMurtrey, MS, 2002

Remote Behavioral Influence Technology Evidence/John J. McMurtrey, MS, 2003

Inner Voice, Target Tracking, and Behavioral Influence Technologies/John J. McMurtrey, MS, 2003, 2005

Patents for Synthetic Telepathy, V2K, Silent Sound, Microwave Hearing, Neurophone:

Nervous System Excitation Device (First Neurophone)–Patent #US3393279/July 1968/Patrick Flanagan Gillis

Method and System for Simplifying Speech Waveforms—Patent #US 3647970 A/1972/March 1972/Gillis P. Flanagan

Apparatus and Method for Remotely Monitoring and Altering Brain Waves–Patent #: US3951134 A/1976/Robert J Malech

Microwave Hearing Device–Patent #: US4858612 A/1989/Philip L. Stocklin

Silent subliminal presentation system—Patent #: US5159703/Oct 1992/Oliver M Lowery

Method and Device for Implementing the Radio Frequency Hearing Effect–Patent #: US6470214 B1/2002/James P. O’Loughlin, Diana L. Loree

Apparatus for Audibly Communicating Speech Using the Radio Frequency Hearing Effect–Patent #: US6587729 B2/2003/James P. O’Loughlin, Diana L. Loree

System for Producing Artificial Telepathy—Patent #: WO 2005055579 A1/June 2005/Lynne Moody, Miles Philip Moody

Please share widely, with linkback and attribution.

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.