Betreff: Further clarification of neurolit review
Von: susan
Datum: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:43:43 -0800 (PST)




CCAPT2001@aol.com wrote:
From CCAPT2001@aol.com Thu Feb 3 00:04:47 2005
To: welsh@dcn.davis.ca.us


I'm just adding a few links eventhough those are not all  scientific
publications, and some are in fact from your website or the list like  the 1985 CNN
documentary with Delgado and apart from an article  by a former French Senator
about the necessity to think about neuroethic  considering inventions like
brainfingerprinting, which apparently hasn't been  posted yet.

It sure is more interesting to contact scientists who would  be at least
ready to discuss issues, ethics and some of the research  at the same time like
challenging somewhat technoscience.   Eventhough it's not completely
"mainstream" for scientists it is being  discussed.
Community based research might be more  open 

Definition  from a website = A science shop provides independent
participatory  research support in response to  concerns experienced by civil society
(SCIPAS).
We have  filed a request for expertise eg, since it's a need for a group of
citizens  and it's being discussed.

You mention  Delgado's cats and dogs but Delgado is shown in this impressive
CNN Nov 1985  documentary (Special Assignment) with all the scientists like E.
Rauscher and  Bill van Bise.  In the second part, electromagnetic devices and
the human  brain, they show monkeys and Delgado is repeating just in front of
them  that there is no more needs for electrodes.  The journalist says just
after  Delgado that nothing has been implanted.

The  scientists or experts have to answer some of the questions about how 
this might be done : it's not new that implants are  being developed and
commercialised (see the pictures of the Baja beach  club in Spain where "VIP clients"
can have a readable implant inserted to avoid  carrying a purse
_http://www.baja-beachclub.com/bajaes/asp/zonavip.aspx#implantacion_
(http://www.baja-beachclub.com/bajaes/asp/zonavip.aspx#implantacion) ).
Brain  machine interface are also being developed and all this civil 
commercial research is progressing.
NTT DoCoMo  is working on Mobile phones that can read read a conversation
from the lips  (by detecting the electric signals of the muscles) and amplify the
sound in  crowded places.



There is also the example of telemedecine, the antenna can be an object 
nearby (the patient or the victim?)  The excerpt below is from your book,  the
"1950's secret discovery of the secret code of the brain". 
The information which is on your website is important to understand the 
subject.  It's difficult to grasp what it is really about by reading a  scientific
publication.
==========================

No  author.(1990,July12).Federal Germany Develops Superconductive Antenna For
Space  and Medical Use. Xinhua General Overseas News Service. Lexis-Nexis.”  
"...has  successfully developed a superconductive antenna for space and
medical use. The  antenna, made of high-temperature superconductor, can be fixed in
satellites to  receive the electromagnetic wave emitted by earth so that
researcher can exactly  determine the humidity in soil and the content of water
vapour. The antenna can  also be installed in medical instruments to help
doctors determine the faint  signals from brain and heart." 
==============================


The work of Lawrence Farwell on brainfingerprinting does not solve the 
problem of the distance from the brain to measure the P300 peak in the  EEG since
he uses some type of helmet.  I don't know if someone has  posted the patents
though, there are three of them apparently says the article  on the website of
the company:
_http://www.brainfingerprinting.com/DesMoinesBusRecord.php_
(http://www.brainfingerprinting.com/DesMoinesBusRecord.php) 
The evoked potential indicates that the person recognises what is  shown or
told to him.  Even if it is apparently only a gross  reconstitution of
someone's thoughts, it does show what a scientist can do  almost on his own.
===============


Just in case below is a bibliography by R. Beck and E.  Byrd.  There is no
link to the articles so it's difficult to know if  it's really relevant:


BIBLIOGRAPHY  ON THE PSYCHOACTIVITY OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS _[1]_
(http://www.vxm.com/bib.doc.html#fn0) 
Robert  C. Beck and Eldon A. Byrd   _http://www.vxm.com/bib.doc.html_
(http://www.vxm.com/bib.doc.html)  


It is unusual to include a bibliography of this magnitude with  a mere
position paper; however, we feel that, with a subject as controversial as  this one,
it is essential to give the reader an insight into the tremendous  amount of
work that has gone on in the background of this relatively new field.  The
bibliography accompanying the article originally ran only four pages; then,  with
the help of Eldon Byrd of the Naval Office of Surface Weaponry, a more 
extensive one was compiled on this sensitive topic. This important bibliography  is
included in its entirety.-- Ed
Gavalas-Medici, R. [J.], and S. R. [Day-]Magdaleno. An evaluation of 
possible effects of 45 Hz, 60 Hz and 75 Hz electric fields on neurophysiology  and
behavior of monkeys. Phase 1. Continuous wave. ONR Technical Report Control  no.
N00014-69-A-0200-4037, National Technical Information Service no. 
AD-A008-404/6GA, Springfield, Va., April 1975.
-------- . and S. R.  Day-Magdaleno. Extremely low frequency, weak electric
fields affect schedule-  controlled behaviour of monkeys. Nature 261 (1976):
256-258.
Gavalas  [-Medici], R. J., et al. Effect of low-level low frequency electric
fields on  EEG and behavior in Macaca nemestrina. Brain Res. 18 (1970):
491-501.

-------- . Changes in brain protein during learning. In Macromolecules and 
Behaviour, ed. G. B. Ansell and P. B. Bradley, 3-26. London: MacMillan,  1973.
Ibrahim, M. Z. M. The mast cells of the mammalian central nervous  system. 1.
Morphology, distribution, and histochemistry. J. Neurol. Sci. 21  (1974):
431-478.
Kimeldorf, D. J., and E. L. Hunt. Ionizing Radiation: Neural  Function and
Behaviour, 261-263. New York: Academic Press, 1965.

--------Effects of electromagnetic radiation on the nervous system. Ann. 
N.Y. Acad. Sci. 247 (1975): 15.

Russo, F., and W. E. Caldwell. Biomagnetic phenomena: Some implications for 
the behavioral and neurophysiological sciences. Genet. Psychol. Monogr. 84 
(1971): 177-243.
Saito, M., et al. Response of nonspherical biological  particles to
alternating electric fields. Biophys. J. 6 (1966):  313-327.

Williamson, S. J., et al. Evoked neuromagnetic fields of the human brain.  J.
Appl. Phys. 50 (March 1979).
=====================

An excerpt of the article by the former French Senator which can be  fed to
babelfish I guess.


_http://www.
lyonne-republicaine.fr/dossiers/chroniques/oepweb/20040402.YON_D1122.html_
(http://www.lyonne-republicaine.fr/dossiers/chroniques/oepweb/20040402.YON_D1122.html) 
« De  la bioéthique à la neuroéthique. »  Un  sénateur dénonce les risques
des neurosciences
"La  véritable question est de savoir qui va décider quelles sont les
pensées, ou  faits mémorisés qui sont "normaux" et où commencent les pensées
"illégales" ou  "pathologiques" souligne le Docteur Quirion. Prenant l'exemple du
terrorisme, le  Docteur Quirion poursuit "On peut comprendre qu'il soit tentant de
vouloir  utiliser cette nouvelle puissance des neurosciences pour traquer et
identifier  les auteurs d'attentats istes. Mais cela justifie-t-il pour
autant que  l'on puisse explorer les pensées les plus intimes de chaque
citoyen, y compris  dans des les domaines les plus personnels ?" Le Docteur Quirion
termine sa  réflexion en précisant que "Les nouveaux outils et méthodes
d'investigations  issus des neurosciences nous donnent dès à présent un pouvoir de
connaissance  des pensées d'autrui qui relevait encore de la science-fiction il
y a seulement  quelques années. Sans exagérer ce problème, il faut donc en
être conscient et  commencer à réfléchir aux conséquences morales et sociales
d'une utilisation  généralisée de ces nouvelles méthodes."
Enfin, si  les neurosciences parviennent, dans un futur proche, à identifier
précisément,  puis à "lire" des faits mémorisés dans notre cerveau et à faire
le tri, d'une  manière quasi-infaillible, entre mensonges et faits réellement
vécus, pourquoi  ne pas aller plus loin en imaginant que ces nouveaux outils
scientifiques  pourront aussi, dans un futur moins éloigné qu'on ne le pense,
permettre de lire  dans les pensées. Ces nouveaux outils sont déjà
expérimentés, notamment par la  NASA, qui vient de mettre au point un logiciel qui permet d
’interpréter les  signaux nerveux qui contrôlent la parole.
Lorsque  ces nouveaux moyens technologiques seront, dans un futur plus proche
qu'on ne le  pense, à la disposition de la police et de la justice,
faudra-t-il alors, […]  arrêter quelqu'un simplement parce qu'il pense à commettre un
acte illégal ou  criminel ? Chacun sait bien qu'on peut, dans certaines
circonstances  particulières, souhaiter brièvement la mort de quelqu'un mais, dans l
'immense  majorité des cas, cela ne se traduit pas, heureusement, par un
passage à l'acte  criminel car notre comportement ne se résume pas à des pulsions,
des envies ou  des instincts et obéit à une multitude de règles et de
contraintes sociales,  éducatives et morales, même si nous n'en avons pas toujours 
conscience.
On voit  donc à quel point, après les récents progrès de la biologie et de la
génétique,  les extraordinaires progrès des neurosciences vont soulever dans
les années à  venir de véritables et complexes questions éthiques liées au
champ d'utilisation  de ces nouvelles techniques dans les domaines judiciaires,
économiques et  sociaux et au respect de l'intimité et de la vie privée. C'est
pourquoi, après  une décennie caractérisée par un débat politique, législatif,
social et moral  sur les conséquences des progrès de la biologie et de la
génétique, nous devons  commencer à réfléchir à l'élaboration d'une neuroéthique
qui viendra prolonger  et compléter le débat social et démocratique permanent
qui s'est déjà instauré  dans le domaine de la bioéthique. Il est en effet
essentiel que ces  extraordinaires progrès des neurosciences ne puissent jamais
être utilisés pour  porter atteinte à la liberté individuelle, à l'intimité et
au libre-arbitre et  respecte la dignité et la singularité de chaque être
humain.
================
--------------


Nathalie Luthold
France

Dans un e-mail daté du 27/01/2005 19:04:18 Paris, Madrid, 
welsh@dcn.davis.ca.us a écrit :


To  me, it's real progress to see what the establishment's argument  against
accepting mind control weapons as real is.  I clarified it  below, as I think
it is.

Thanks for info posted so far.    This is repetitious, sorry and many of you
are already working on  this.  I am trying to clarify the lit review for
myself more than  anything, am not sure yet!  I have to admit to sloppy,
inaccurate  biased reading over the years, see below.  Details are  really
important, and narrowing the topic now.  General statements  just do not cut
it.  Well, this report will be a small step, I  hope.  Also ideally this
report will have to be as accepted science as  possible, nothing too
controversial or hypothetical.  It may be we can  only show it's
theoretically possible and that the science is suppressed,  goes black etc.
Science standards will have to be met for the lit review to  have any
credibility.

Here is the main very important point.   Horgan, who wrote the Discover
article and the scientist I emailed, are  making the SAME argument, there is
no science to
demonstrate sophiscated  mind control, hence there is no reason to worry
about mind control weapons,  etc.    But the  HUGE new point is: their
argument is  definitely the OFFICIAL cover story accepted by the military
today.   It is the post cold war official position on nonthermal
bioeffects of emr  weapons and why we don't have to worry about mind control
weapons.   And you can see why most of the world accepts it.

I thought it was  obvious with Slesin's US News cite at end of this email,
that sophisticated  mind control is possible today, but it is clear to me now
that this is  debatable to them and to me also.  My UC Davis student neurolit
review  can focus on challenging their stance.   Their  stance  is
superficial, omits important details, is biased and  dishonest
scientifically, at the least it is debatable, see 2nd email  below.  But you
have to prove it to human rights experts, lawyers,  congressman or they just
won't address this issue, as we know.  I mean  to say Horgan and this
nonlethal weapons expert are wrong, which is what we  do when we talk abut
mind control,  explains why we are not believed  by lawyers, congressman,
human rights experts.  Sure you can convince  some people, but to get real
help for this issue, obviously more needs to  be done.

The scientist I emailed answered one more email because I  wanted to be sure
what he meant
by his statement, " In my yses of  the effect of radiowaves on people, I
have never found any significant  effect other than heating of the tissues."

Nonthermal bioeffects of emr  means ANY bioeffect other than heating.  He
agrees with this  definition and stands by his statement!

This is amazing because in  1965, director of Project Pandora, Dr. Koslov
said, " "[We] thought about  it, don't get me wrong,... but nothing was
found, it doesn't look like  [there is]...militarily at this time, there is
no emr weapons potential.  There is nothing to the biological effects claim.
There is an amount of  power problem."

So the point being, top gov. scientists were wrong in  1965 and now we are to
believe top government scientists are right in 2005  as explained in my
recent article.  They are top scientists in the  world and they didn't just
make a mistake!  If you can make points  like this to lawyers, congressman
etc, I think it will really help.   If you can get this info published and
supported by human rights experts,  that would be the goal, and key of the
neuro lit review etc.

I  mentioned to the scientist I emailed, the funding recommendation for  emr
bioeffects
research by the 2002 NSF Converging Technologies Report  and Horgan's
Discover article citing Delgado stopping the charging bull  remotely, as
examples of significant emr bioeffects.

He  replied:  "Please be more careful.   See:
http://www.wireheading.com/jose-delgado.html  where you will  find,  "Dr
Delgado used a radio signal to activate an
electrode  implanted deep in the bull's brain. The bull was brought to a
halt at  Delgado's feet. "

The radio signal did not affect the brain.  It  was the implanted electrode
that did so.

So, technically the  scientist is right. My neuro lit review by the UC Davis
student
needs to  clarify, emr signals that work WITHIN the nervous system like
Delgado's  experiments and emr that works on a cellular level that put
animals to  sleep, cause anxiety, cure depression etc.  The  Converging
technologies report talks of stopping depression, putting super  soldiers to
sleep, i.e general nonthermal bioeffects of emr which he does  not
think are SIGNIFICANT.

I think a SCIENTIFIC argument can be made  for sophisticated mind control
possible
today.  But I don't know  that it will be as strong as I thought it was.
Without the history of  mkultra etc, the pure science of mind control may be
harder to prove with  science lit. today, given you have to meet scientific
standards.   Maybe not.

I agree now that Slesin's description is only a  start.
Sophisticated mind control is reading thoughts, implanting  thoughts,
nonthermal emr bioeffects, causing pain, controlling heart rate,  bodily
functions, all remotely,  These are the subtopics the science  lit review
hopefully will include and have to be addressed  separately.

A 1997 US News and World Report article by Douglas  Pasternak entitled
"Wonder Weapons" explained this process. ". . . the  human body is
essentially an electrochemical system, and devices that  disrupt the
electrical impulses of the nervous system can affect behavior  and body
functions. But these programs-- particularly those involving  antipersonnel
research--are so well guarded that details are scarce.  "People [in the
military] go silent on this issue," says [Louis] Slesin,  [trade publisher of
Microwave News for the electromagnetic radiation  industry], "more than any
other issue. People just do not want to talk  about this."