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.â€
"...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 Ã
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 déjÃ
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, Ã 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 Ã
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 Ã
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, Ã
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."