Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues proceedings on Tuesday, 1st March 2011: Human Subjects Protection webcasts of the presentations.
You should pay very close attention to the penultimate video where 22 members of the public and non-consenting subjects/victims of many years of research abuse share their personal experiences pleading for the Commission to help them. It is a stunning revelation about what is happening reflected by a diverse group of people from different locations throughout the US.
Prior to this second day's sessions of the Commission, I submitted the following comments on Sunday, 27th February 2011:
Valerie H Bonham
Executive Director
The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues
Suite C-100
1425 New York Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20005.
Dear Ms Bonham
Re: Public Commentary Day 2 1st March 2011 Human Subjects Protection Needs to be Distributive & Global Moving from Collective Model Due to Technology
My final public comments with respect to protection are as noted below and attached in *.PDF. They reflect my 12.5 years of experience as a non-consenting subject of medical experimentation and the distributive character that the neuroscience based surveillance technology creates.
I believe that this is the critically important point of departure for today's state of the science and medicine as they relate to protection for what is actually happening in the world today. The technology makes it both global and individual which requires a similar response for protection.
This needs to be contrasted against the collective reflected by the Tuskegee and Guatemala experiments as a result of today's technology and ability to carry out abusive research on a distributive basis globally.
This is why I send this along to you during what must be a hectic time for you to pass along as you see fit so that it can receive the attention deemed appropriate and joined with my previous comments.
I do not believe that this is something which will originate from the organisations and speakers since it is clandestine but is certainly something about which they need to be aware in terms of their governmental and academic administration and educational activity.
Sincerely yours
Gary D Chance
http://garydchance.com/
http://garydchance.tripod.com/surveillance/
http://garydchance.bravejournal.com/
http://garydchance-gary.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/garydchance
http://www.facebook.com/garydchance
http://www.myspace.com/garydchance
http://www.youtube.com/garydchance
enclosure
Public Commentary
The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues
Suite C-100
1425 New York Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20005.
Day 2: Human Subjects Protection
1st March 2011
I want to address the problem of protection of people with regard to the ethics of neuroscience, medical and general scientific research in the context of my previous comments relating to my direct experience for 12.5 years 24/7/365 as a non-consenting experimental subject for R&D relating to neuroscience based surveillance technology.
There are three basic areas which are simple but profoundly and devastatingly ignored by all of us at one time or another upon which we must focus clearly since the world has changed dramatically impacting all aspects of human life and endeavour given the development and abuse of neuroscience that I have experienced in the past decade as already described. The collective abuse has been replaced by distributive abuse which reorients the focus of attention for the process of protection.
The three principles which are generally abrogated are: 1) listening; 2) detection; and 3) enforcement:
1) We don't listen to other people especially at the two extremes of the education spectrum where those at the bottom do not want to show their ignorance and pretend to know while those at the top have both learned so much and don't want to show their ignorance that they are certain they know as well.
We need more people like Socrates who was ignorant and knew that he was ignorant. For this the Oracle at Delphi told him he was the most wise of men which he did not accept. He went in search of wisdom seeking to be taught by others, but each time he saw that others thought they were knowledgeable when they were not. The difference was he knew he did not know; hence, he was the wisest. A sound medical and scientific education also communicates how much we do not know. It's not as if this does not exist but gets forgotten.
When something comes along that is new and abusive as is this neuroscience based surveillance technology for social control to torture people into obedience and submission, no one listens no matter how carefully it is described. They don't want to believe that this new science and ability to read the human brain's thoughts, etc actually exists. It's more comfortable for most to live in the old world, so they dismiss it and anyone who talks about it. They thus become vulnerable themselves and help make and keep others vulnerable to its abuse by those who exploit.
Since I wanted to protect myself against the adverse effects of this surveillance technology's electromagnetic radiation abuse given the fact that I have a history of skin cancer with malignant melanoma surgery as already described in August 1979, I sought at least an annual dermatology examination to catch any recurrence even after 20 years since there was a disposition to skin cancer. In fact, in June 1998, Bowen's disease was diagnosed from a small lesion in the centre of my chest.
On one of my later visits to the dermatology clinic in the early 2000s at a local teaching hospital for an annual examination, I tried to explain why I sought the examination in order that the physician would be better informed about what to do. The dermatologist and several medical students sitting in as part of the examination took my explanation in stride about the surveillance technology abuse without saying anything. Later I saw the letter that the dermatologist had sent back to my GP which is routinely done following such examinations.
In it the dermatologist asked if there was any history of mental illness in my case specifically asking if I was a paranoid schizophrenic. I was trying to both protect myself and reduce the costs of treatment by early diagnosis for one of the easiest cancers to detect, but I met with a negative attitude about what I was explaining that also took place in a training environment which had evidently concluded that I was off my rocker. Students were being trained to disregard the patient and not probe further if there were any questions. I was ignored and disregarded, and what the patient was saying was treated as if it couldn't possibly be right. The result was my being blamed for having a further illness which was heading off in the wrong direction.
Before this occurred I had a similar and far more devastating encounter with two psychiatrists who did not bother to listen to me at all because their minds were obviously already made up. They were participating in the surveillance technology abuse themselves, knew that what I described was accurate and sought to blame me for perverse reasons of their own. This occurred in early 2000 before the neuroscience based surveillance technology arrived a year later in early 2001.
This encounter with these two psychiatrists followed on after I had written a lengthy letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair in September 1999 about the whole situation. I was subsequently subjected to an intense escalation of the then surveillance technology abuse, and the psychiatrists eventually sought an interview with me. I saw each one once and was subjected to more abuse including my letter to the Prime Minister which was displayed to me as part of my hospital folder.
The second psychiatrist who spent a great deal of time in the vicinity of my home participating in the surveillance technology tried to get me to take a powerful anti-psychotic drug as a calmative when it was not needed since there was no psychosis, and no diagnosis had been made. He did not even know my medical history. And, he was not listening to anything I was describing.
I refused to take any medication, made a formal complaint and refused to talk with either of these psychiatrists again. They then rolled out into the community in full surveillance participation which included the following year and on after the neuroscience based surveillance technology arrived for further development.
They were participating in extensive surreptitious medication by various means administering this to me inside my home without my consent. They would bring along other medical professionals to participate. These were not mysterious people. I had met with and talked with each which was one of the key reasons I voluntarily visited them. I wanted to find out who was prowling around my home.
As this neuroscience based surveillance technology R&D progressed from February 2001 onwards, I was dealing with two physical problems that needed medical attention: 1) cataracts in each eye; and 2) the risk presented by the use of this electromagnetic radiation surveillance technology as it related to skin cancer. I was being treated at hospitals which were all part of one complex of National Health Service hospitals.
These were the eye hospital, the hospital with the dermatology clinic and the hospital with the mental health clinic. The first two problems had solid physical evidence for practising medicine. The third had none whatsoever, but those involved were able to make up what was needed to carry out extensive “treatment” in the community against a non-consenting adult outside a hospital environment. No matter how much correspondence I sent out to doctors and hospital administrators nothing was done to stop the abuse.
I was generally ignored and considered mentally ill which reinforced what the psychiatric hospital was doing in the community with surveillance technology. I was even told by one specialist at the eye hospital that the cataracts were not caused as I had described despite what a continuous body of medical evidence had to show about exactly what had happened. They were all “on message” and wanted me to admit to what was not true so I could be “on message” too. Where was the delusion here?
How could the National Health Service expect to function properly if one hand was causing injury which the other hand had to fix it? This was a great waste of resources on all sides to say nothing about dirty data, and no one listened to the patient thinking all knew better. If the patient was mentally ill, then the National Health Service was all right and doing a proper job on all sides. It was better for all to blame the individual than accept collective responsibility objectively determined.
If you look at the National Health Service today, it is in a state of financial and managerial crisis. Where do you suppose this came from, and will it be fixed by the proposed changes? Will flattening the National Health Service help GPs and others listen to their patients? The real danger that is emerging in today's world with this neuroscience based surveillance technology is Münchhausen’s By Proxy Syndrome where people are being treated for conditions that do not exist because those using the neuroscience based surveillance technology make it all up. That's why I call it Toxic Surveillance. It is much like Toxic Debt with its fraudulent foundation and transaction abuse [for gain].
2) Detection is the means to place the neuroscience based surveillance technology on an objective foundation. As I described earlier, the interception of the human brainwaves' electromagnetic radiation while extremely important is irrelevant because it does no damage and is totally unknown to the target. Eventually learning about the loss of privacy and confidentiality can be devastating. The feedback process is entirely different. This is where the harm originates and must take on a top priority with regards to protection.
There needs to be developed and made available to the public an inexpensive means to detect these electromagnetic radiation transmissions which bring about the electronic transmission of sound, the inducement of thoughts and images in the brain, the pain and muscle movement in the body and the surreptitious medication for starters. Just as I can see what wireless access points are available for my computer usage, the same kind of detection should be made for these transmissions as well.
I can look at all those wireless access point transmissions in my vicinity with my computer software for their wireless transmitters/receivers to detect and see described who is available with its corresponding signal strength. I should be able to see if any of these brainwave electromagnetic radiation transmissions to me are present and even be able to read them such as the voice which is being communicated. The difficulty is that they are microwave transmissions that are pulsed at the very low frequency of the brainwaves to match the brain's frequency/wave length. If these can be made to impact the brain as they do, then they can be detected electronically and even read such as the sound.
This will provide proof about exactly what is being done. As it is now, I can try to gather all the evidence I can about what is happening other than the actually electronic transmissions. I've dabbled in this, but I've not been able to do much because of time and expense. Frequencies that are pulsed can be detected. What would be most useful would be to actually be able to listen to the sound being transmitted. This is well within the prospect of doable and is something the scientific, medical and engineering communities need to consider which is reflected by the composition of the Commission. .
There are other considerations for detection which can be very important such as the Mass Spectrograph for identifying the chemical content of hair to determine the presence of surreptitious medication. There surely must be other areas of the body which contain the residue of all that happens to a human being chemically. This whole area needs to be explored in terms of what is viable and necessary for the objective determination of the abuse by the neuroscience based surveillance technology.
3) Enforcement needs to be available by means of statute law so that the evidence from detection can be used to properly address these abuses which one would hope could provide a deterrence to those who venture into the unethical so that such behaviour will become unlawful and criminal at a point defined by law.
The state of Michigan passed a law which became effective at the beginning of 2004 which recognised that electronic weapons exist and are used maliciously:
http://garydchance.tripod.com/surveillance/id32.html
I really like this law and believe that it covers the problem very well, but to use it effectively there must be proof for which detection is essential. I believe that this is the kind of law that is needed at the Federal level to cover the entire US and apply to all personnel outside the US who are connected with the US government either as employees, agents or contractors. If they or their organisations are paid by the US taxpayer, they should be subjected to US laws.
Any US government funding to any company or organisation should make it liable under Federal law for any transgressions. I believe that civil rights was moved forward on this basis which raised people's hackles with respect to government interference, but then it was justified on the basis of human rights. In a like manner this situation where electronic weapons are being developed on the foundation of neuroscience based surveillance technology, the activity should carry with it the provisions of law to protect people who might be on the receiving end of such electronic weapons development/use by virtue of US government financing.
I want to point out at this point that in my reading of several years ago I noted that the US Marine Corps was given the responsibility for heading the development of non-lethal weapons. At the same time the two key people associated with this neuroscience based surveillance technology R&D carried out against me from February 2001 onwards up to and including the present have been Colonel Vine USMC Ret and Lt Harry Bird USMC Ret who probably as a reservist has been promoted to captain while here. How this has been justified is incomprehensible to me if it is true.
Conclusion
From the point of view of the practise of medicine no one is looking at the whole person except the patient him/herself. This allows specialists to go off on their own by ignoring what is happening elsewhere and in other ways to a patient s/he might be treating. Prime Minister David Cameron is trying to change this in the UK by flattening the managerial structure of the National Health Service to bring the point of decision making down to the level of the GP and patient him/herself. Whether this will provide for total patient care at the point of entry to medicine remains to be seen. I believe that the prospect of abuses like those that I have experienced could be reduced. That does not, however, eliminate the potential for abuse by the GP. Accountability is a key element here.
At the same time the point of enforcement must come to the individual being subjected to this abuse so that s/he can develop the means to individually detect and verify objectively what is happening and be able to pursue a legal remedy in the judicial system that will protect. This will need to be done in conjunction with the medical profession and scientific community based upon objectively determined evidence that is also derived from the human body reflecting what has or has not occurred along with the objective determination of external sources of electronic weapons such as those from this neuroscience based surveillance technology being used maliciously.
Since this is a distributive process and not a collective one of abuse, these kinds of protection methods need to be developed for the individual on an inexpensive and easy to use basis. For this reason I believe that these elements involving listening, detection and enforcement need to be integrated on the basis of the individual so that objective determinations can be made for one person. This is how the overall system has changed from the collective (Tuskegee, Guatemala) to the individual with this neuroscience based surveillance technology where the response to it needs to match this distributive orientation.
Gary D Chance
London, UK
27th February 2011
