Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense

Book review by Cheryl Welsh

Region:

Book review of  Jonathan D. Moreno, Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense

by Cheryl Welsh

Many experts are claiming that mind control weapons will be developed in the twenty-first century and public debate and government oversight are called for. New research and information is now available. A thank you to Dr. Moreno for opening up a debate on brain research and national defense and for addressing the alleged government mind control victims in a nonjudgmental way. In his 2006 book, Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense, Moreno concluded there are no advanced government mind control weapons. This paper presents a counterargument and the rarely heard fifty year history and facts indicating the likelihood of already developed, advanced mind control weapons.

The consequences are serious. The public knew of the immense power of the atomic bomb and could debate and protest. The very classified advanced EMR weapons are known to be in development but are completely surrounded in government denials, cover stories and disinformation. No solid facts from the government have been forthcoming. The public has a right to be concerned now.

Moreno is an ethicist, not an investigative reporter and he reported on the overwhelming consensus; that mind control is a conspiracy theory. Moreno failed to look beyond the common assumptions, interview impartial experts or analyze the comprehensive information required to come to a reliable conclusion. Instead he relied on very entrenched assumptions and overlooked important but hard to find information. Moreno was misled by the national security bully pulpit and government control of research on electromagnetic radiation (EMR) mind control weapons. How will the public find out about mind control weapons when they are developed?

This is a summary of a complex issue and facts and citations are included in the paper below. EMR mind control weapons are one of the deepest secrets of the nation and advanced EMR mind control weapons would be more powerful than the atomic bomb, according to experts. In the Cold War era, major nations developed EMR weapons in total secrecy, without public input. In the post Cold War era, the U.S. has gone public with some of it’s EMR weapons programs and the EMR arms race has spread mainly from the U.S. and Russia, to China and India.

Moreno wrote that he should have heard leaks about any long running government mind control program but he did not, so there must not be one. But Moreno is an ethicist, not an insider and he did not interview secrecy experts who agree that many insiders know of national security secrets held at the executive branch level. But there are rarely serious leaks of information and the public almost always remains in the dark. New facts continue to support the likelihood that advanced and very classified EMR mind control weapons have already been developed.

Moreno and others believe the lack of scientific theories and deployment of EMR weapons is proof that there are no advanced mind control weapons. But there are several indication of successful research and weapons. For example, there are hard to find, scientifically sound, general EMR-based mind control theories and successful demonstrations of EMR bioeffects research. Over the decades, there has also been the continuous discovery of ‘new’ mind reading technologies and EMR weapons but this is always followed by a government classification of the ‘new’ research as secret, so that mind control has remained a national security secret going back to the 1960s.

A commonly used scientific delay tactic

Moreno discussed the belief held by many that since there is no worldwide consensus on a mind control theory, there couldn’t be advanced mind control weapons. But the claim of a lack of a theory is an old, misleading, inaccurate but very effective scientific delay tactic. This tactic involves claiming a scientific certainty when there is none. A scientific theory is not essential for making scientific findings or discoveries. In addition, the empirical scientific method is defined as using trial and error or experience rather than theory and is a well accepted scientific method.

For example, tobacco companies suppressed known health effects linked to smoking for decades in order to maintain their profits and avoid lawsuits. In the 1950s, medical doctors observed serious health problems found mostly in their smoking patients. For years tobacco companies claimed there was no direct cause and effect evidence and no theory on which to base the doctor’s claims. In 1994, tobacco company executives lied under oath to Congress, stating they didn’t believe cigarettes caused cancer or were addictive. Tobacco company documents contradicted their testimony. For decades, tobacco companies had successfully employed several, misleading, scientific delay tactics, for example, discounting empirical evidence, suppressing unfavorable research and blatant lying.

Another example of this scientific delay tactic is the analogy to Cold War scientists who controlled scientific information surrounding the atomic bomb. Government scientists claimed a lack of scientific proof for a causal connection to alleged ill health effects and denied known health risks from ionizing radiation. Government studies and documents on radiation health risks were not publicly available. Today, declassified government documents show that the government suppressed government documents and studies that proved otherwise. In the 1994 book Myths of August: A Personal Exploration of Our Tragic Cold War Affair with the Atom, Stewart Udall described his unsuccessful legal battles with the U.S. government over scientific evidence and classified government documents. Publisher’s Weekly stated;

Above-ground nuclear bomb tests in Nevada after WW II made human guinea pigs of civilians living downwind in several western states, as later revealed by thousands of cases of radiation-induced cancer, childhood leukemia, burns and birth defects. In an expose of the government’s decades-long policy of public deception concerning the hazards of radiation, Udall, secretary of the interior under JFK and LBJ and a former congressman from Arizona, condemns the U.S. nuclear testing program as a violation of the Nuremberg Code. He also describes his protracted struggle as a lawyer, beginning in 1979, representing the widows of Navajo uranium miners who developed cancer.

One final example, the U.S. military withheld information about possible links between Agent Orange and birth defects, and downplayed the defoliant’s link to cancer. This was reported in the Sacramento Bee November 1, 1998, page A4.

Now this same scientific delay tactic can be seen in Cold War EMR bioeffects research and this has contributed to a lack of agreement on a scientific theory for how EMR bioeffects work or even if there are EMR bioeffects. One noted expert stated that EMR scientific uncertainty can be shown to be a result of industry and government inactions and policy. Simply put, the U.S. military wanted to keep EMR weapons secret. During the Cold War era, the government’s cover story was; if there are “no proven EMR bioeffects then there are no EMR weapons.” The government cited national security concerns to some EMR scientists who then cooperated and this cover story was successfully circulated publicly.

Moreno, like most experts do not report on Cold War/post Cold War EMR research and weapons history. This history is important because several human rights experts, military and civilian authorities, and top government science advisors claim that the bioeffects of EMR are a scientific basis for some EMR weapons and a biological basis of some brain function. Therefore, very powerful mind control weapons are scientifically feasible. Moreno and most experts state that decoding the brain is decades into the future and this fact virtually eliminates the possibility of the current development of advanced EMR mind control weapons. But Moreno does not explore the possibility that a brain theory could be classified. And scientific evidence of the bioeffects and psychological effects of EMR have never been disproven.

This could be all disinformation as Moreno believes. Moreno pointed out in his book that government funding of research does not prove anything. But what would account for this sweeping government effort surrounding EMR bioeffects research and weapons by major nations in the world since the 1960s and the escalating efforts in the post Cold War era? Not surprisingly the public is rarely informed of the Cold War history of the East/West continuous funding of EMR weapons research. Russian classified mind control programs were revealed only as a result of the monumental event of the breakup of the Soviet Union. Mainstream press does not write of the post Cold War revelation of a flip flop on the U.S. policy for EMR bioeffects and subsequent ‘new’ funding of EMR bioeffects weapons research. Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests a reasonable probability of advanced mind control weapons developed by the U.S.

The evidence is clear that the systematic and misleading government scientific tactics are continuing today. The question becomes whether as a democracy, we want to allow this pattern continue in the name of national security. The denials from some experts that there are no health risks from EMR and there are no EMR weapons to worry about have completely overpowered any counterargument. There is a new post Cold War, patronizing and paternalistic campaign by some top scientists to stop ‘bad’ or fringe science and to save government money. These scientists are recommending that ‘needless’ EMR bioeffects research be discontinued, based on the claim that health effects have not been conclusively demonstrated. The campaign is extremely disingenuous, dishonest and egregious, given the known EMR bioeffects controversy and history which these scientists fail to mention. The counterargument and evidence today is undeniable but top scientists still deny vigorously and some use personal attacks rather than arguing on the scientific merits. This is science at its worst.

It will be up to the public to recognize the deceptive scientific tactics and the overwhelmingly powerful national security scientific culture. Top scientists such as the atomic weaponeers lied about radiation exposure health effects. Any trust in public and government officials has been lost and ought to be continuously questioned. In the case of EMR weaponeers, exposure of any ongoing unethical behaviors and the weak rationalization that this behavior is necessary for national security does not hold up in a democracy. Certainly, cigarette company executives, and also scientists who conducted the nonconsensual radiation experiments have not been judged harshly enough for the large numbers whose health was affected.

Cold War and new post Cold War EMR history

The public has rarely been told the following key facts of EMR history. The 1984 BBC TV documentary, Opening Pandora’s Box, explained how EMR health standards were set in the 1950s;

The safety standards for electromagnetic radiation, EMR, were set higher in the 1950s to allow the military to have unlimited use of EMR technology. At the time, American science reports suggesting EMR health effects of brain tumors, heart conditions, leukemia, cataracts and more, were ignored. The military was a major source of funding and reports were not followed up. The government safety levels for EMR were challenged in courts all around the world.

Microwave News, a journal on nonionizing radiation, for example, reported that radar men opposed microwave tower EMR health dangers. Air traffic controllers and police officers filed complaints. These court cases revolved around the validity of the safety standard. Dr. Milton Zaret, another Pandora scientist explained that most government committees who set the safety standards around the world were set up the in the same way as in the U.S. Members of the committee did not want to impede or put restraints on progress by tightening the safety standards for EMR. [The 1960s Project Pandora was run by the department of defense to determine if there were bioeffects from the microwave bombardment of the U.S. embassy by the Russians.]

The U.S. government wanted to avoid costly lawsuits and to be able to develop EMR technologies such as radar systems that were considered essential for national security. The EMR bioeffects scientific uncertainty and also opposing US/Russian scientific views on nonthermal effects of EMR continued into the 1980s. The official government position on EMR bioeffects never varied during the Cold War. Some experts still cite this position even as scientific evidence from U.S. military sources now refutes the old government stance. For example, Richard Garwin is a member of the JASONs, a high-level group of physicists, whose advice is usually classified and routinely sought by the Department of Defense. He coauthored the 1999 and 2004 Council on Foreign Relations, (CFR) reports on nonlethal weapons. In reply to email questions in 2005, he stated; “. . . In my analyses of the effect of radiowaves on people, I have never found any significant effect other than heating of the tissues. . . . So I don’t think there is much in the threat of electromagnetic signals to control or disorient people by the effect on the human brain.”

Dr. Robert O. Becker conducted research on EMR bioeffects from the 1950s-1980s and was a two time Nobel prize nominee for his EMR bioeffects research. He provided a rarely stated and startling new explanation for that time. In the 1984 BBC documentary, Opening Pandora’s Box, Becker claimed;

The U.S. may very well not have any [secret EMR weapons] program whatsoever. On the other hand, it is equally valid to have such a program being conducted in even greater secrecy than the Manhattan Project was conducted. And the best cover story I could think of for that would be for the U.S. to portray itself to the rest of the world, as a nation that was discarding the possibility of EMR weapons, entirely, based upon its best scientific evidence.

In the post Cold War era, the U.S. belief that EMR bioeffects are significant and extensive is indicated by official policy and statements, and funding of the EMR weapons research. With the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Pentagon publicly unveiled the nonlethal weapons program including weapons based on nonthermal EMR bioeffects. Now the U.S. policy that there are “no proven nonthermal EMR bioeffects” took a 180 degree turn. The July 7, 1997 US News and World Report, Wonder Weapons article confirmed;

For hundreds of years, sci-fi writers have imagined weapons that might use energy waves or pulses to know out, knock down, or otherwise disable enemies-without necessarily killing them. And for a good 40 years the U.S. military has quietly been pursuing weapons of this sort. Much of this work is still secret, and it has yet to produce a usable ‘nonlethal’ weapon. . . . Scores of new contracts have been let, and scientists, aided by government research on the ‘bioeffects’ of beamed energy, are searching the electromagnetic and sonic spectrums for wavelengths that can affect human behavior. . . .

Here is a 2006 article describing current military interest in EMR nonthermal bioeffects weapons research and that EMR weapons are scientifically feasible and would likely be successful. The article reported on U.S. Air Force-sponsored weapons research and disputed the U.S. government’s long held ‘heating only’ theory of EMR. The Russian research described below would indicate that the U.S., for national security reasons, would also have developed EMR weapons. But the reporter was skeptical of already developed EMR weapons, almost certainly because he is unaware of the history of the EMR bioeffects controversy. November 24, 2006, Defense Tech, Directed Energy, US Bioelectromagnetic Weapons Research by David Hambling, posted at www.defensetech.org;

Could new weapons stun or paralyze with a beam of radio energy? I have discussed proposals for ‘bioelectromagnetic weaponry’ in Defence Tech before, here and here, but for the first time details are emerging of Air Force-sponsored work in this field. This report, entitled “Interdisciplinary research project to explore the potential for developing non- lethal weapons based on radiofrequency/microwave bioeffects” — states their goal:

Our research is to lay the foundation for developing non-lethal stunning/immobilizing weaponry based on radiofrequency (RF)/microwave(MW) radiation by identifying RF/MW parameters potentially capable of selectively altering exocytosis, the process underlying neurotransmitter release and hence nervous system functioning.

. . .The researchers at the University of Nevada have concluded that non-thermal effects of RF do exist and may be harnessed. In an abstract here (on page 317)- a study of Non-Thermal effects of RF Radiation on Exocytosis – states “The effects of RF exposure on catecholamine release that have been observed to date cannot be explained by an increase in temperature.”

And there’s more. Other work by the same team, is described here. It will also support a DEPSCoR- funded program that extends those studies to include microwave frequencies and to explore the effect of pulsed and CW RE/microwave exposure on skeletal muscle contractility. The suggestion is that a correctly tuned beam of microwaves (possibly pulsed or modulated) would be able to interfere with skeletal muscles. This might ultimately give a means of producing the same sort of non-lethal effects as a Taser — but potentially from much greater range and over a wide area.

So far, the work has been entirely on ‘in vitro’ cell samples in the laboratory, and only modest alterations in cell function have been produced. This is a very long way from being able to actually influence a living creature. Any suggestion that this sort of weapon has already been fielded by the US should be treated with skepticism.

Everything is in very early stages in the US program. But, as I mentioned a while back, the Russians have been looking at this technology for years. Dr. Vitaly N. Makukhin of the Trymas Center in Moscow has published papers on “Electronic equipment for complex influence on biological objects” which he claims can produce effects including “disorder of the autonomic nervous system.” Few people have taken him seriously in the West before. Now that the same sort of effects are being confirmed in US labs, perhaps we will start taking more of an interest in what this type of weapon may be able to do.

In the post Cold War era, a new public campaign to close down the EMR bioeffects research effort is based on the premise that EMR bioeffects or health effects have not been conclusively demonstrated. The outcome is that EMR bioeffects research will be conducted for the most part as classified research, as it has since the 1960s. The public will continue to be unaware of the very classified EMR mind control weapons.

The EMR scientific research and weapons culture

Largely unknown to the public, systematic tactics were used to successfully carry out the government cover story of only heating effects and no proven bioeffects from EMR. Eileen Welsome, Pulitzer prize-winning reporter and author of the 1999 book, The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War wrote about the atomic bomb scientific culture from the 1940s to the 1990s. The very same utilitarian culture is present in the Cold War and post Cold War EMR scientific culture and is documented in detail below. The methodical and systematic tactics were very successful in promoting the atomic bomb, preventing costly lawsuits that claimed health effects from radiation exposure, and questionably, protecting national security. Welsome’s description provided a key explanation for how the U.S. government national security science policy is actually carried out. Welsome wrote;

Many scientists couldn’t accept the idea that they or their peers had committed any wrongs. They maintained their belief that the ends they had pursued justified the means they used, expressed little or no remorse for the experimental subjects, and continued to bash . . . the media for blowing the controversy out of proportion. . . . A few of the experiments increased scientific understanding and led to new diagnostic tools, while others were of questionable scientific value . . . [There was a] pervasive deception that the doctors, scientists, and military officials routinely engaged in even before the first bomb had been detonated. General Leslie Groves [head of the Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bomb] lied egregiously when he testified to Congress in 1945 about radiation effects of the bomb.

“A pleasant way to die,” he said-fully aware of . . . [what happened to the Japanese victims and in a fatal laboratory accident.] Stafford Warren [director of the Manhattan Project’s Medical Section] downplayed the fatalities and lingering deaths in Japan. . . . During the war, the bomb makers believed that lawsuits would jeopardize the secrecy of the project. After the war they worried that lawsuits would jeopardize the continued development of nuclear weapons . . . The weaponeers recognized that they would have to allay the public’s fear of atomic weapons in order to keep the [US plutonium] production plants operating . . . This meant an aggressive propaganda campaign about the “friendly atom” and the suppression of all potentially negative stories about health hazard related to atomic energy . . .

AEC officials routinely suppressed information about environmental contamination caused by weapons plants . . . The fact is, the Manhattan Project veterans and their protégés controlled virtually all the information. They sat on the boards that set radiation standards, consulted at meetings where further human experimentation was discussed, investigated nuclear accidents, and served as expert witnesses in radiation injury cases.

Public awareness

As shown below, a few new laws and treaties on EMR weapons have passed and this is another of many indications that EMR weapons are a real concern. Still, discussions have been crippled by secrecy, suppression of information and a lack of support.

In the case of EMR bioeffects research and EMR weapons development, the U.S. government controlled the research funding and a utilitarian EMR scientific culture enabled systematic scientific tactics to be carried out in order to maintain EMR weapons as one of the deepest secrets of the nation. As a result, the public is in the dark about the next generation of powerful EMR weapons after the atomic bomb. But a small handful of outspoken critics like Becker, Brodeur, Adey, Slesin, Lopatin, Arkin and others have published hard to find information on EMR bioeffects science and weapons in the Cold War and now post Cold War era.

The government’s cover story of the lack of proven EMR bioeffects has been the result of extensive and questionable government scientific tactics in the name of national security. Becker was right about an EMR Manhattan project. The U.S. government will never admit to government mind control weapons, although the tell tale signs are present. What EMR bioeffects are so important to merit this long history?

The U.S. military is not a reliable source of information on EMR mind control research and weapons because their primary goal is to protect national security. Where can the public go for reliable answers? Public input, debate, and government accountability and oversight are a part of the checks and balances in a democracy. For example, because reliable documented information on brain research and national security for the public is lacking, requests for a GAO or Government Accounting Office report on the new brain technologies and weapons could be requested from Congress.

No effective legal protections for nonconsensual secret experiments

The public should also be very concerned because the development of the atomic bomb involved extensive nonconsensual human experimentation that was thought to be essential for protecting national security. A 1994 congressional hearing reported that “nearly half a million Americans were subjected to some kind of Cold War era tests,” often without being informed and without their consent. The widely-held belief by Moreno and most experts is that secret mind control experiments couldn’t happen today. It is true that experimentation law is well grounded in constitutional and international law. But effective laws have not been implemented despite past secret human experiment scandals including radiation experiments. Current federal regulations do not provide legal remedies for victims or punishments for intelligence agency scientists, although the department of defense has adopted better rules and regulations.

The current ineffective legal protections are caused in part by a very powerful but silent Cold War culture based on the belief that human experiments are the only feasible means to achieve essential national security goals. This culture overwhelms the majority consensus of advocates for human subject protections whose rhetoric is well-accepted but who fail or are unable to act in any meaningful way.

Given the strong consensus for protecting national security at all costs, it is highly likely that the current regulations will also prove ineffective in reality. For example, it is well documented that congressional laws were passed to retroactively eliminate government contractor liability for radiation experiments, court rulings were interpreted to severely limit government liability, and government lawyers and scientists suppressed scientific evidence of the health effects from exposure to radiation. The government won most legal cases brought by victims. In past CIA mind control experiments, the CIA had the approval from the very top levels of government to use any means necessary and the CIA acted above the law. No one was punished and almost all victims of LSD experiments lost their legal battles. Moreno and most experts do not give any weight to this paradox.

A thorough, impartial investigation

Moreno wrote that since writing his 1999 book Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans, he has received a huge volume of letters and calls from victims claiming nonconsensual government mind control experiments. So much so that Moreno wrote extensively of the problem in his new book Mind Wars. But Moreno made the very common mistake of not seeing beyond the ‘crazy sounding’ testimonies of alleged government mind control victims. Mainstream press and now Moreno and the neuroscience community have dismissed the claims as conspiracy theories without a thorough and impartial investigation. Moreno’s did not present the required balanced debate needed to reach such an unequivocal conclusion. The public is left to ponder a complex and controversial issue with little hard evidence and Moreno’s professional beliefs and opinions which lack sufficient supporting evidence. The fallacies and bias in Moreno’s reasoning are too serious to disregard.

Moreno wrote that there is no evidence of ongoing government mind control experiments today. Sufficient hard evidence will always be lacking for this issue. Classified weapons programs are surrounded in government denials, disinformation and cover stories and predictably, a lack of hard evidence. It becomes irresponsible to wait for hard evidence or government admissions before investigating further.

Investigating claims of alleged illegal mind control experiments can be made in light of this little known and now more complete picture of the long history of international EMR bioeffects weapons research and the very successful and documented U.S. government methods, tactics and illegalities used in the development of EMR bioeffects weapons. The counterarguments to Moreno’s reasoning and conclusion provide a solid basis for a call for a thorough impartial investigation. A 60 minute-style investigation is needed because of the growing numbers of mind control allegations. Based on these findings, much more research and information is called for.

Cheryl Welsh is Director of Mind Justice
 
TOC


Articles by: Jonathan Moreno

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.[email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]