CIA Director William Burns Addresses Havana Syndrome Probe And Compensation At Aspen Security Forum

$upport via Cash App

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviewing CIA Director William Burns at the Aspen Security Forum((07/21/22)

CIA Director William Burns recently attended the Aspen Security Forum, where he sat down for a lengthy interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. Among the notable topics that came up during the interview was the status of the Havana Syndrome investigation and the criteria the agency will use to decide which victims get compensated and which ones don’t.

The CIA has taken a lot of incoming from critics over what many perceive as their reluctance or even unwillingness, to get to the bottom of the Havana Syndrome mystery, so it was quite refreshing to see Director Burns openly addressing Andrea Mitchell’s questions without unnecessarily hiding behind classification issues.

Andrea Mitchell(video at 37:42):“I want to ask you about something that has been going on for six years since the first known case, and that is what the government calls anomalous health incidents(AHI), and which is commonly known as Havana Syndrome. So six years later, do we know anything more about what caused these illnesses?”

CIA Director Burns(38:49):“I think we’ve made significant progress in ensuring people get the care that they need and deserve. We tripled the number of full time personnel in our medical office that deals with this issue. We’ve worked out very important relationships not just with Walter Reed, but with private medical systems to make sure people got the care. On the investigation side, over the course of the last year and a half, we’ve thrown some of our very best officers at this, working closely with partners across the U.S. intelligence community and the U.S. government. It’s fair to say that we’ve learned a lot over that time. There’s still more to learn, it’s a frustrating process, but I have great confidence in the professionalism of the people who are carrying this out, and in their commitment to objectivity. You know, a few months ago, the intelligence community across the board, made public some preliminary findings, the broadest was that we don’t assess that a foreign player, whether Russians or anyone else, is behind, or is responsible for a sustained global campaign, the scale of what has been reported, to harm U.S. personnel with a weapon or some kind of external device. We further stated publicly several months ago, that in the majority of incidents, and we’ve investigated each one as throughly as we possibly can, we’re still working on a number of them, that you could find reasonable alternative explanations, whether it was other environmental factors, or preexisting medical conditions, or other kinds of medical explanations. None of that detracts from the real nature of what people have gone through. We still have work to do despite the progress that has been made in the investigation. This is not something that CIA only is doing, as I said we work very closely with other partners, and I owe it to my officers and their families to be straight about first making sure that they get the care that they deserve, but also being straight about what we find and what we don’t find.”

There’s no other way to interpret Director Burns’ remarks other than(I’ll be happy to stand corrected of course), the CIA probe has confirmed that some of the victims have indeed suffered brain injuries that would be consistent with some kind of external attack, but the agency is not there yet on a definite attribution–that is, reasonable people could reasonably disagree on the causes of such injuries, whether that be directed energy weapons, other environmental factors, preexisting medical conditions etc. In other words, the CIA has not yet singled out directed energy weapons as the definite cause of the brain injuries to U.S. personnel.

The debate then turned to the thorny issue of who to compensate and who not to

Andrea Mitchell:“Congress has authorized compensation. How do you compensate if you don’t know what it is?”

Director Burns:“We are very careful to implement the spirit of that law, which talks in very specific terms about the kind of injuries that people have suffered, and so it’s not a question of causation, it’s a question of what people have gone through, and so we’ve already began the process of implementation and we are going to work very hard at doing that because that’s what people deserve, and that’s what Congress expects.”

Director Burns’ response, that the compensation decision will be based on the type of injury the victim suffered, and not necessarily the cause of the injury, was quite interesting because it plays right into the hands of CIA critics who say the agency is not being candid about Havana Syndrome and its real cause—RF pulsed microwaves/ directed energy weapons. In other words, a lot of skeptics will raise the same question Andrea Mitchell posed to Director Burns—how the government quickly devised a handsome compensation scheme for victims of Havana Syndrome, whose cause the government does not know. No reasonable person believes that the United States, the most technologically advanced nation on earth, does not know what caused the injuries to U.S. diplomats in Cuba and elsewhere.

As usual, the interview never touched on the taboo question as to whether the CIA is looking into claims by regular civilians in the United States(not U.S. government personnel) who started complaining about directed energy attacks way before the reported incident at our Embassy in Cuba. This is a question the corporate media has made a conscious decision not to ask, but need to be asked. Are claims of directed energy attacks only credible when they are made by current or former government officials?

Bottom line folks, it was refreshing to see Director Burns openly discussing Havana Syndrome, but at some point the corporate media will have to drop its self-imposed embargo, and ask the taboo question as to who/what is behind directed energy attacks on regular civilians. There is absolutely no reason why the media cannot pose this question to the CIA, or any other government agency. None!!

Also, if Director Burns can openly talk to Andrea Mitchell about the Havana Syndrome probe, then he surely can entertain similar questions from members of Congress in an open forum.

For those of you out there (a MUST for TIs), interested in a REAL targeted individual case currently playing out in Houston, Texas, you can keep up with its latest developments via this link

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Havana Syndrome: The Less Talked About Public Health Angle

$upport via Cash App

Dr Beatrice Golomb, Founder of the Golomb Research Group, and Professor of Medicine at UC San Diego.

While the investigation into who’s attacking our diplomats and causing Havana Syndrome is still ongoing, a different but related debate is playing out in American living rooms, and that is, what the federal government is doing to protect the general public from the health effects of exposure to radio frequency(RF) radiation, which includes microwaves.

A Havana Syndrome webinar conducted by the University of Texas Southwest(UTSW) in Dallas(02/10/2022) led to among other conclusions that (1) pulsed microwave radiation was the most likely cause for Havana Syndrome and (2) that microwave technology is already being used in the United States, Russia, China, and many of our Western allies for surveillance purposes. Therefore even setting aside the question as to who attacked our Diplomats in Havana and elsewhere, reasonable people will agree that there needs to be a serious debate regarding the effects these microwave technologies have on the general public.

An interesting and quite informative interview on Green Street Radio (03/01/22) featuring the esteemed Dr Beatrice Golomb, delved into that very topic–harmful effects of microwaves and other RF radiation. Dr Golomb is the Director of the Golomb Research Group. She is currently a Professor of medicine at UC San Diego. She received her B.S. in Physics Summa Cum Laude from USC. She worked at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory as an Engineer, and then got her PhD in Biology and a medical degree from UC San Diego. She is an expert in among other things, the effects of exposure to radio frequency microwave radiation, which many experts have pinpointed as the most likely cause for Havana Syndrome.

Dr Golomb said in the Green Street Radio interview(video @ 17:00 onwards): “Radiation is often divided into two different types–ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is the radiation in the higher end of the frequency range, from part the ultraviolet range up to things like x-rays and gamma rays. This is referred to as ionizing because higher frequencies are associated with higher energy, and when the energy is high enough, it is sufficient to dislodge electrons from atoms and molecules. This is referred to as ionization. So there is sort of a mantra that is incorrect, that it is only ionizing radiation that can cause damage, or only ionizing radiation that can cause DNA damage. In fact most of the evidence about the harms from ionizing radiation come not from the ionization, but actually from oxidative stress…In fact, oxidative stress also occurs with non-ionizing radiation. It occurs with radio frequency radiation which by the way encompasses a very broad set of frequencies, the upper end of which are called microwave radiation. So microwaves are a subset of radio waves…All of those frequencies are capable of causing damage by oxidative stress…The exposures that are tied to these non-ionizing radiation…are exposures that themselves promote oxidative stress…affect mitochondria[DNA]…There are now multiple studies showing that even though this radiation[microwave] is designated as non-ionizing radiation, it causes DNA injury…There’s basically a disinformation campaign that tells people that unless radiation is ionizing it can’t cause problems.”

There is no other way to interpret Dr Golomb’s remarks other than, the government’s stance that only ionizing radiation can cause harmful health effects is not entirely accurate. Dr Golomb is stating categorically that non-ionizing radiation, which includes RF microwaves, can also be very harmful to the public, and can even cause, in her words, “DNA injury”. According to Dr Golomb, the dispositive factor when it comes to evaluating the harm caused by radiation is not whether its ionizing or non-ionizing, but rather, whether it causes “oxidative stress”. Dr Golomb says both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation can lead to oxidative stress, meaning even RF microwaves are harmful to the public.

Dr Golomb goes as far as accusing the government of running a “disinformation campaign” when it says non-ionizing radiation like RF microwaves are not harmful. Back in 2015, she wrote a stern letter to the New York Times, castigating one of its journalists(George Johnson) for downplaying the health effects of EMF radiation in one of his articles. Folks, Dr Golomb isn’t fooling around–the real deal!!

There’s a growing sentiment in the country that given the rapid advancement in technologies, the federal government is not doing a good job in informing the public about the public health risks associated with such advancements. One classic example is the Havana Syndrome. In the course of looking for the culprits who attacked our diplomats in Cuba, we have discovered that microwaves are also used in the U.S., presumably by law enforcement, for surveillance purposes. Given Dr. Golomb’s educated assertion that microwave radiation can cause “DNA injury”, it’s not a lot to ask that the government levels with the public as to how these microwave surveillance technologies affect public health. In other words, if you expose a “dangerous subject” to very high levels of microwave radiation daily, for an extended period of time(months, even years), as part of his/her “necessary surveillance”, are you really surveilling the target or just irradiating them to death? Simply put, guardrails need to erected when it comes to the use of these microwave technologies.

On that front, it’s very encouraging to learn that the good folks at Green Street Radio, through their non-profit Americans for Responsible Technology(ART), have filed a petition with the FDA, demanding that the agency “immediately issue an ‘Imminent Hazard’ declaration regarding public exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices and infrastructure…” Hopefully this is the beginning of a movement by concerned citizens demanding more government accountability when it comes to new radiation technologies.

Bottom line folks, the government cannot/must not be allowed to continue hiding behind the “it’s classified” excuse when it comes to RF radiation technologies. The public has a right to know what they are being exposed to, and how such exposure affects their health. Congress needs to hold hearings regarding this issue, preferably with the esteemed Dr. Golomb as one of the subject matter experts.

For those of you out there (a MUST for TIs), interested in a REAL targeted individual case currently playing out in Houston, Texas, you can keep up with its latest developments via this link

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com