The Inadequacy of Physician Mindset in the Era of Neuroweapons

Diagnosis That Is Not “On The Menu”

“This is no longer science fiction, this is reality”, – this alarming sentiment has been spelled out to neurologists, politicians, and the general public by every neuroweapon expert from Giordano, to McCreight, to Krishnan, and by many more of their colleagues who have affirmed the reality of brain-degrading neuroweapons used against military, diplomatic, and intelligence personnel overseas, and also against civilians conducted domestically.[1]

The latter acknowledgement was made publicly by Dr. James Giordano, a neurology professor at Georgetown University, and a world leading expert in neuroweapons, on February 10, 2022 during a medical conference on “Havana Syndrome” held by The University of Texas. The significance of this revelation has been largely ignored by the media. Yet, this acknowledgement makes “mysterious” Havana Syndrome a public safety issue.[2]

Brain-degrading neuroweapons have been brought to the forefront of public conversation in a significant way starting with 2016-2017 series of reports named later “Anomalous Health Incidents”, or AHI, also known to most as Havana Syndrome. However, while journalists are talking about federal employees who received permanent brain damage by “directed pulsed radiofrequency energy in the microwave range” overseas, the conversation about domestic cases against civilian is suspiciously absent. Medical experts have figured out how to diagnose this kind of brain injury and the government accepted its existence in federal employees attacked overseas.[3-7] But let’s make it absolutely clear: when civilians are attacked domestically, on the ongoing basis, resulting in permanent brain damage, this becomes a public safety issue that presents enormous risk to the members of the general public who are being targeted with this remote brain-degradation technology, and to many who will be attacked in the future. Yet, government agencies have not acknowledged any domestic cases of AHI, neither in federal employees, nor in civilians.

It is almost inconceivable that this very old technology (originating at least in the 60s), and its modern more sophisticated varieties have not been figured out by our mighty intelligence services, especially since this is a technology we closely unfamiliar with.[8]

But talk to an average person, politician, or neurologist about this real threat, and you will realize that the idea of someone remotely, intentionally and repeatedly damaging one’s brain falls outside of their worldview, common sense, and clinical experience. 

Academics studying this phenomenon explain that when we are faced with a new problem people typically choose old thinking that doesn’t apply to novel threats.[9]

It has been established that “Havana Syndrome”-type neuroweapon attacks are intentional.[1] Intentionality denotes intelligence, and that’s an important point that has to be clearly understood. Intelligence is capable of misleading, deceiving, distracting and redirecting investigative efforts to uncover malevolent forces behind these attacks. There are scientific papers devoted to “malevolent creativity” that remind us that progress and innovation are not exclusive to those who stand for human improvement. Forces that want to harm and degrade human brain are just as inventive and creative.[10]

Special attention should be paid to an average physician mindset, which does not reflect current reality. First of all, physicians are not likely to diagnose something that they have not been trained on, or being informed about. They demand established science to be a reliable source of diagnosis. However, when the subject is shrouded in government secrecy, published science on the subject is largely unavailable (with the exception of recent publications on “Havana Syndrome”). The concept of neuroweapons and intentional degradation of human brain is foreign to them. Due to being uninformed, or due to dismissing malevolent intent as a causative agent, doctors are not considering neuroweapons as a potential cause for clinical manifestations described elsewhere, and thus they are not including it in their differential diagnosis menu. And if it’s not on the menu, it would not be diagnosed.

Here is what has been published in the military medicine journal concerning AHIs.[11] Military physicians designate these as UBI (unconventionally-acquired brain injury), as opposed to TBI (traumatic brain injury). The latter is synonymous to concussion. However, UBI is likely occurring due to intentional use of “directed energy”, and we are presented with two scenarios for this kind of brain injury:

1. Source is unknown, but most likely is due to directed energy, which should be recognized as a gross violation of Geneva Convention, and every human right.

2. Source is known, but classified. In this case, the main concern of the authors is that any information related to the issue of national security should be kept out of the inquiry of academic and civilian scientists, as well medical practitioners.

I am shocked by the difference in ethical approach in these two scenarios, especially in light of recent statements and revelations of repeated domestic attacks of civilians and federal employees inside our country. This is a public safety issue, and the argument of national security simply doesn’t work. What could be more important than health and security of our own citizens? Isn’t it the essence of national security?

There is no diagnosis of UBI in the ICD-10 (Internation Classification of Diseases for civilians). There is an urgent need to create a new entry in the ICD that should be called Non-Kinetic Brain Injury, – injury caused by directed energy (as opposed to mTBI, which is synonymous to concussion, - injury caused by a mechanical trauma).

And finally, I’d like to list and summarize my thoughts about 5 main barriers that stands in the way of changing physicians’ mindset toward the issue at hand:

1. Lack of awareness of how fast neurotechnology, and specifically neuroweapons have matured beyond their imagination in the recent years

2. Being uninformed about publications on the subject (especially when technology is shrouded in government secrecy)

3. Not understanding intentionality of this technology, and the ability to target a single person out of the crowd

4. Not understanding a reason “why” would anybody be attacked by this advanced technology (which is not a fair question to the victims, since the intent is only known to malevolent forces that conduct these attacks)

5. Peer pressure and fear of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist”

So, in my opinion as a physician, and as a civilian formally diagnosed with Non-Kinetic Brain Injury, we have to work on overcoming these barriers in medical diagnosticians.

I would like to close with a quote from Robert McCreight, a prominent neuroweapon expert, who mirrors my sentiment in his recent article published in Small War Journal: “Coming to grips with the reality of a non-kinetic disabling technology which aims to specifically degrade neurological and cognitive functions requires the suspension of disbelief among those who reside in the comfortable confidence that no such weapon exists.”[12]

References

1. Giordano, J. and D. DiEuliis, Anomalous Health Incidents of the Havana Syndrome: Implications and Lessons for Global Biosecurity and Defense. Academia Letters, 2022. April. 

2. Havana Syndrome: Medical, Scientific, and Policy Perspectives. . UT Southwestern Conference, 2022.

3. Balaban, C.D., et al., Distinctive Convergence Eye Movements in an Acquired Neurosensory Dysfunction. Front Neurol, 2020. 11: p. 469.

4. Verma, R., R.L. Swanson, and D.H. Smith, Neuroimaging of US Government Personnel Exposed to Directional Phenomena-Reply. JAMA, 2019. 322(22): p. 2249-2250.

5. Verma, R., et al., Neuroimaging Findings in US Government Personnel With Possible Exposure to Directional Phenomena in Havana, Cuba. JAMA, 2019. 322(4): p. 336-347.

6. Hoffer, M.E., et al., Acute findings in an acquired neurosensory dysfunction. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol, 2019. 4(1): p. 124-131.

7. Swanson, R.L., 2nd, et al., Neurological Manifestations Among US Government Personnel Reporting Directional Audible and Sensory Phenomena in Havana, Cuba. JAMA, 2018. 319(11): p. 1125-1133.

8. Schamiloglu, E., Experts suggest US embassies were hit with high-power microwaves – here’s how the weapons work. The Conversation, 2022.

9. Hunter, S., Litgon, G.S., Human nature can steer people away from new things – and that can blind them to novel threats. The Conversation, 2022(August, 2022).

10. Gill, P., et al., Malevolent Creativity in Terrorist Organizations. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2013. 47(2): p. 125-151.

11. Biggs, A.T., et al., Unconventionally Acquired Brain Injury: Guidance and Instruction About an Emerging Challenge to Warfighter Brain Health. J Spec Oper Med, 2021. 21(2): p. 43-48.

12. McCreight, R., Neuro-Cognitive Warfare: Inflicting Strategic Impact Via Non-Kinetic Threat. Small Wars Journal, Sept 2022