Dr Giordano shreds IC Report on AHIs into pieces

Havana Syndrome IC Report is a step backward

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/3/10/intel-communitys-havana-syndrome-report-and-its-flawed-assumptions

Dr Giordano, a thought leader in the realm of neuroweapons, had a few harsh words for the authors of March 1, 2023 IC report on AHIs.

First, I noticed that in this article Giordano uses AHI and Havana Syndrome interchangeably: “…report addressing anomalous health incidents commonly called the "Havana Syndrome."

That is a departure from his April 2022 opinion letter published on Academia.com in which he separates the two by saying “AHIs of the Havana Syndrome “. https://academia.edu/resource/work/90046249 

My guess is that the most recent conflation must be a result of uncareful editing, for a simple logical reason: if events and syndrome are the same, then what do you call a condition resulting from these events/syndrome. The right framework matters, especially when dissecting such an extraordinary phenomenon. I would like to hear from Dr Giordano his thoughts on a hierarchy or a framework that would be straightforward and not confusing.

But let’s get back to Dr Giordano’s article in the National Defense Magazine. Dr G appears to be quite furios as to the conclusions of the latest IC report. 

Here is my breakdown of his critique in 6 easily understood points:

1. Inconsistency

   • The conclusions of the report are Inconsistent with last 5 years of evidence and analysis 

2. Misrepresentation of data

   • The report fails to acknowledge originally established observations of the victims, but rather attributes all of the incidents reported to date on the factors that had previously been negated. And in doing so, all the initial deeply researched reports and consequent reports of AHI incidents are inappropriately conflated, which constitutes misrepresentation of data. 

3. Ignoring NAS panel findings

   • NAS panel of experts concluded that many of the symptoms and signs were, in fact, consistent with exposure to some form of radio-frequency and/or electromagnetic energy waves 

4. Failure to recognize the current state of technology

   • Report fails to recognize and acknowledge the readiness of devices capable of emitting directed energy, including those by the United States

5. Dismissal of expert opinions who worked on probable cause

   • Report simply dismissed analyses of experts that were contributory to describing relevant aspects of these incidents and their probable cause (such as laser-like pulsed EM energy in the microwave range from an outside source)

6. The Report is a step backward

   • The report is not simply false, but may impede U.S. efforts to recognize, quantify, develop defenses, and readiness to withstand these attacks; including civilians which is a public health issue. 

Dr Giordano also emphasizes (and I wholeheartedly agree) that the report is a disservice to the general public, and to those of us who are being affected by this invisible but real technology, and to those who will be affected in the future.

I think that the report only serves the interests of those who want to maintain the the following narrative:

1. It wasn’t a foreign adversary 

2. Foreign adversaries don’t possess this technology

…Who are the beneficiaries of this narrative?