Last night, 60 minutes revealed the weapon.
Tonight, the scientist who investigated the original attack.
I woke up with a full body compulsion.
The worst pain I have ever felt,
it felt like a vice gripping my brainstem.
A portable silent weapon that can penetrate the walls of your home.
We are told it doesn't look anything like a gun.
It's designed to be concealed and small enough to be carried by a person.
It is silent, the device is programmable for different scenarios and can be operated by remote control.
And for almost a decade, the government said it wasn't real.
Are you saying this is a cover-up?
This is a massive CIA cover-up.
And not only downplayed, but dismissed.
These are not buckshot devices.
These are shock shot devices.
And that's what renders them.
Perhaps every more elegant in their exquisite-ness of nefarious use.
Let's find out.
Everyone, welcome to the good trouble show I'm Matt Ford.
Last night, 60 minutes broke the story that the United States government secretly purchased a directed energy weapon.
A portable, conceivable device that may explain nearly a decade of brain injuries suffered by American diplomats, spies and military officers.
Tonight, we go deeper.
Our guest is the scientist who was brought in to investigate the original cases.
He examined the patients, he analyzed the brain scans, and in 2018.
Six years, six years before the government bought that device,
he briefed US Special Operations Command and said this was, quote,
"A beta test of a viable neuro-weapon."
It's just insane.
Tonight, he's here to explain what these weapons do to the human brain,
what else is out there that the public doesn't know about,
and why the people who knew the truth were ignored for years.
Dr. James Giordano is Professor Emeritus of Neurology, Biochemistry and Ethics
at Georgetown University Medical Center.
He has served as a senior scientific advisor to the Pentagon, DARPA,
the Department of Health and Human Services, NATO and the World Health Organization.
He currently serves as head of the Center for Strategic Deterrence
and study of weapons of mass destruction at the Institute for National Strategic Studies
at the National Defense University in Washington.
He was the forensic neuroscientist brought in to investigate the original
Havana Syndrome cases in Cuba, the author of over 375 publications,
10 books and 50 government reports.
His new book is called Bioethics and Brains, out now from MIT Press.
We should note that Dr. Girardano is appearing tonight in his personal capacity.
His views are his own and do not represent the National Defense University,
the Department of Defense or the federal government.
Please welcome Dr. James Girardano.
Dr. G, welcome to the Good of Troubleshow.
Before we get into the substance, you advise the Pentagon, DARPA,
you had a weapons of mass destruction center at the National Defense University,
what security clearances and tickets do you hold?
I will the top secret clearance with sensitive compartmentalized information
with multiple compartments.
Okay.
And you were the consulting forensic neuroscientist on the original Havana Syndrome cases.
In plain English, what is Havana Syndrome, which I understand now is referred to as anomalous health injuries,
and what did these individuals present with when you examined them?
I think it's notable to say that at first we discussed this as the immaculate concussion.
These individuals presented objective signs and subjective symptoms
that were representative of some kind of a head injury as if they'd been concussed.
None of them had been concussed.
None of them had history of concussion or prior head injury.
They were presenting with vertigo, disorientation, inability to concentrate,
profound fatigue, loss of motor control, loss of balance, inability to eye track,
and just profound, profound disorientation.
All of this occurred rather rapidly for them.
It occurred independently.
It occurred in their domicile as when they first noticed it.
And each one of them then referred to the medical facilities on the island
and then were taken off the island where they were independently examined by Dr. Michael Hofer in Florida.
I came on to the case subsequently to Dr. Hofer's examinations.
And I was approached by the Department of State at that time pretty much with the idea,
"Hey, something's going on here. What is this? Can you help us to figure out what this is?"
So the process that I use is one called abductive forensics,
which basically is one of the possibilities given all of the data, all of these individuals' health records,
metadata about their geographies, their environments, the architecture, prior histories, operational histories,
and then of those possibilities, what might be most probable?
So the idea is to rule certain things out and rule certain things in.
Now everyone at home has a microwave in their kitchen.
How do you turn that same energy into something that damages a human brain
without the person knowing?
Well, I think it's important to understand that there's probably two types of directable energies
that these individuals were exposed to, perhaps independently, perhaps in tandem or in some combination.
The first patient seemed to also exhibit signs of being exposed to some form of long range,
acoustic, or ultrasonic device. There's a number of reasons for that,
because of the signs and symptoms that they presented with and the nature of those findings.
Then there were also some very curious findings, even in that first cohort that would have suggested that's probably not the case.
Early on, we didn't think that it could have been exposure to microwaves,
because at that time it was not well known whether or not scalable, fieldable, and rapidly pulsable microwaves
would have been available for that type of perhaps operational use, even in a setting that may have been,
for example, occupational safety and health.
In other words, were they exposed to some kind of a microwave at work?
Well, that was certainly not the situation.
So the issue with these microwaves is that to provide that kind of microwave energy at a distance of 25, 30, 35 meters,
would require an incredible amount of power, which obviously would necessitate a very large power source,
which someone would notice. I mean, now we're talking about something the size of a pickup truck.
But a major revolution in the field happened around 2012, 2011, and that was the use of very rapidly pulsed lasers
to create a very rapidly pulsed microwave that decreased the energy requirement significantly.
And by decreasing the energy requirement, decreased the size requirement, and therefore allowed these to be scalable,
fieldable, and usable in a variety of operations. And so that addition, the understanding of that technological readiness level,
was an epithelial point that then allowed us to look at these data in a slightly different way,
recognizing that some of the patients had signs and symptoms of exposure to what was apparently some form of ultrasonic energy,
and some of these patients had signs and symptoms of what appeared to be exposure to electromagnetic frequency energy,
most likely some kind of rapidly pulsed microwave, and some patients had signs and symptoms representative of both.
In 2018, you briefed Special Operations Command and said, quote, "This is intentional, this is directed,
this seems to be a beta test of a viable neuro-weapon. What made you that certain that early?"
Well, it actually was not that early, it was over 15, 16 calendar months of deep dive research into what had happened to these people.
And also some anecdotal reports followed up by actual objective reports coming from elsewhere.
So although we were looking primarily at the Havana cohort, there were secondary inter-share reports of, they're not alone.
So the idea again is ruling certain things in and ruling certain things out and the way we go about this is a process called presumptive risk evaluation,
and there are defined methods, protocols, and criteria that are used. And these are widely used, for example, throughout the Veterans Affairs Administration,
the Department of Defense, Public Health, Associations, etc.
To try to determine perhaps what an individual may have been exposed to, the likelihood of that exposure,
and then what that then means for that individual's care. So when we approached these individuals, again,
ruling things out, ruling out environmental toxins, ruling out environmental exposures,
inadvertent drugs, foods, food drug interactions, exposure to certain things at work,
and there were obvious protocols, criteria, and data that were necessary to rule those things out.
And so at that point, we had then come to the conclusion that the most probable issue, the most probable cause,
was exposure to some form of directable energy. Then the question became, well, what kind of directed energy?
Well, the deep dive included examination of the workplace. Were they doing anything at work with any kind of special surveillance or disruptive equipment that perhaps,
as an artifact, a side-effect, may have rendered them vulnerable?
No. Were they exposed at home to some form of perhaps radiative or electromagnetic frequency device that may have been installed in the home,
that they may have been using in and around the workplace? No.
So at that point, it became very apparent doing the analyses of the data at a very granular level,
that these individuals were, quote, "downrange" of something. Now, what could that have been?
And I think what's important to recognize that since 2018, and even today, my feeling is, you know, we can't necessarily say what intent is.
You can't get into someone's head, an adversary, an aggressor, someone who's looking to actually do this intentionally.
So what is the intent? So there could have been three things. First, the intent could have been some form of surveillance or disruption of equipment that these individuals may have been using in their home.
In other words, let's just surveil these individuals utilizing either some form of ultrasonic or electromagnetic frequency radiation.
Let's see if we can disrupt their communications between their home and their work at work, disrupt their communication equipment.
And then, of course, the other issue is, well, if it then incurs some physical issue that disrupts the person and not just the equipment,
then there's a go or no go decision. Do we continue doing this? Or was the original intent? Let's see if we can not only perhaps disrupt equipment, surveillance, communications, but the individuals who is using this.
I can't speak to what that intent is because obviously I'm not getting into the head, whatever that peer competitor adversary may have been thinking.
But certainly, you have to consider the range of possible intentionalities and how these things are being used and put that into that framework.
The physiological damage to people, these symptoms that they're experiencing, can any of this be reversed or are these people living with the rest of their lives, the effects of having experienced this particular weapon?
The most encompassing answer to that question is, it depends. And I hate to give that answer because it seems so ambiguous and vague. But it really depends on three factors.
First, the health of the individual to begin with. Second, the nature of the actual exposure. How many times do they expose at what intensity and potency? How long?
And number three, what type of care did they receive as a consequence of that first exposure? And of course, what we understand is that ultrasonic forms of directed energy produce a somewhat different effect than microwave forms of radiation and engagement.
And as a consequence, we may be seeing multiple forms of brain injury that exist on a variety of levels from the subcellular all the way to the systemic.
And of course, you also have to remember that the brain and nervous system is a controlling system in the body. So with perhaps continued degeneration or dysfunction of the nervous system as a consequence of that first hit or in some cases multiple hits, you then begin to see secondary tertiary,
secondary signs and symptoms, autonomic dysfunction, problem with heart rate variability and regulation problems with digestion, endocrine function, immune function, bodily inflammation, and of course all of the cognitive, mental and motoric signs and symptoms that would go along with the neurological injury.
Which leads me to the question, how many people could have been hit by this and never known? For instance, if a neurologist isn't looking for directed energy exposure, would they even recognize it? And is there any way to shield against it? For instance, can a building be hardened against this type of energy?
There are really three very important and excellent questions there. The first is, how do you know? And that's become something of a moot point. And I have to tell you, you know, there are those early on, we said this is nothing more than a psychogenic associate, genetic effect. In other words, this is mass hysteria.
Well, I can tell you of at least the 24 or 25 individuals who were hit in Havana, that was not crickets, that was not mass hysteria, that was not a psychogenic effect. And I can tell you of the subsequent cases of which there were well over 100 validated and verified cases of events that occurred worldwide.
Those are not representative of psychogenic associate, genetic effects, but this is important. The nature of this event and much of the media that has been surrounding it, and again, this is not in any way miscommunicative media, it's just media.
And some of the ambiguity and confusion, misconception and misperception of what may have happened, what may have not happened, then did in fact lead to a bit of a sociogenic or a psychosycogenic effect more globally.
So here you have individuals who may be employed in government jobs and they're worried, this is what we call the worried well, there may be individuals who have other things wrong with them, inner ear infections, immunological conditions, inflammatory states, neurological conditions that may have gone undiagnosed or partly diagnosed.
And they may have an acute flare up and think, well, was I hit? And then you have other individuals who are just concerned, worried and may in fact be sort of over vigilant, well, could this be happening to me?
And then this also could give rise, you know, downstream to various conspiracy theories, et cetera. And so I think what becomes important to understand is that there has been a rather profound social effect.
And then you have to ask, if I were going to design some type of engagement of mass disruption, where I'm having maximum disruption to a set of targeted individuals, but also creating a veil of confusion, wouldn't that be useful?
Sure. And the short answer is, you bet. And so one of the issues for us continues to be being able to have definable and very discreet criteria that can be used to be able to assess these individuals, assess them.
And therefore, increase the suspicion towards the probable likelihood that something may have happened to these individuals, to then refer them to appropriate care.
And again, as you say, one of the issues here is that your grassroots, so to speak, clinician, your family practitioner, nurse practitioner, PA, who suddenly has a patient in front of them who's presenting with these signs and symptoms, well, the first thing they're not going to think of is, well, this individual was exposed to some form of directable energy.
You're going to think, head injury, possibility of a transient ischemic attack, perhaps some form of hypoglycemia, perhaps some undiagnosed neurological condition, if they're presenting with vertigo or some form of dizziness, inner ear infection, and perhaps even some form of psychiatric or psychological condition, is a some form of functional neurological disorder, a psychogenic effect.
But I think what becomes very important is the history, in other words, taking a very good history of these individuals, where they find, and there was an onset, and into things worsen, was there some discreet, prototypic incident that they can recall, I was sitting at home watching TV, suddenly bang, I felt strange, or I went to bed feeling one way, woke up feeling another way.
Whether some other events that were involved, did they hear funny noises, did they electricity in the house, do a funny thing, well, they driving in the car, and suddenly felt tremendous pressure in their head, and then it went away, and then after that things were not quite right.
Something like that, where they're then beginning to present with very defined neurological symptoms and signs, very defined physiological signs and symptoms, as well as feeling disoriented, anxious, etc.
Well, I think that's sentinel, and so in those cases, what we're really looking for is coupling the history with the presentation and the findings, and at that point, if there are clinicians who think, "You know, I have a patient here in front of me," and this just doesn't seem quite right.
Yeah, it could be A, B, or C, but might it be this?
And the other thing to ask, "Who is this patient? Who is this person?" I mean, what I must tell you, at this point, we're not suspicious of the fact that this is happening at random to individuals on the street.
These are individuals whose role, whose professional life, whose professional activities in career, seem in some way to be involved with issues of state, government, military, intelligence.
So in those cohorts and those individuals, who then suddenly begin to present with these objective signs and these subjective symptoms, you know, putting all these things together, what you're doing is actually creating a bit of a puzzle.
And as you get that puzzle more, particularly put together, you may not have all the pieces, but it certainly is grounds for referral.
Hey folks, over half of our viewers, half of you watching right now are not subscribers. So please help us grow our show by becoming a subscriber to our channel and hit the notification bell so you will always be up to date on our latest shows.
We are also on all the major social media platforms on X, we're at Good Troubleshow and everywhere else at the Good Troubleshow.
And if you prefer to listen to us on your favorite podcasting platforms, just search for the Good Troubleshow with Matt Ford and please leave a review, all that kind of stuff helps us.
Finally, if you would like to become a financial supporter of the Good Troubleshow, we don't have any sponsors or anything like that and your donations help us keep the lights on and pay the rent.
You can donate at Patreon, at www.patrion.com/thegoodtroubleshow. Your donations are what helps us bring you important guests like we have today with Dr. G. Ardano. Dr. G, I like to call them.
Anyway, we'll get back to the show.
He spoke earlier about the technological jump that allowed the miniaturization of this thing. I have to ask, if you can't comment, I totally understand. Have you seen one of these devices?
I can't comment on that, that's her.
Okay. A Norwegian scientist built one of these devices and apparently tested it on himself. He got sick. What does independent replication tell you?
Well, I think independent replication certainly reinforces something that we've been saying for a long time, which is that these devices exist. These devices are scalable. They are fieldable and they are ready for operational use.
Number one, number two, that there is existing technology that is reasonably readily available that would allow even a non-state actor to reverse engineers such a device if they had the skill set and the tools and the necessary equipment and or substrates the parts.
And that the use of these devices certainly can incur physical harm. Can this kind of device, can it be detected if someone aimed one of these things at your house right now? Would you even know whether than just the sensations?
Well, it's certainly possible to detect both ultrasonic as well as microwave, directable energies. The question is, where are you looking to detect them?
So part of the issue, part of the challenge is trying to determine what's called next strike capabilities. In other words, well, where might these things be used?
How are these being used against watch, against government facilities, against individuals in their home, in their automobile, etc.
So the idea is first very, very important to any form of defense and deterrence is defining what are the parameters of use, like anything else. In other words, where is this strike going to occur? Where could such a strike occur?
Then the question is, well, at that point, can we detect it? The short answer to that question is, yes, particularly if you then know what it is you're looking for. And so much of the work since 2017 and 18 has helped to clarify those variables to the point where there's much greater awareness of what we're dealing with and how we're dealing with it.
Then the next question becomes, what does that detection involve and that detection is multilatered? As you mentioned, you can't get something called geographic detection. You can put up a perimeter. You can put up architectural or structural detection.
You can have individuals wearing personal detection. And if in fact you're then thinking, well, there's some way that each one of those parameters has been breached, are there also early phase assessments if someone thinks, well, perhaps I have been hit, these parameters, these defenses have been breached. And that answer is yes. There are certain things that can be done acutely to be able to assess if in fact an individual may have been down range of exposure to this form of energy.
The next question is, well, given that, and we realize that this is now a viable form of weaponized technology, what can be done about that? And that's a larger question. I mean, certainly I'm not keen to work in the area of policy that's way above my pay grade.
But I think what does become important is something that we've been dealing with for a number of years, which is that the international signatory treaties and conventions, such as the biological toxins and weapons conventions and chemical weapons conventions, have been very effective against those types of techniques and technologies that could be weaponized to date.
But you know, it's very, very important that we pay close attention to the science and technology and the pace of that science and technology on the global stage, such that those treaties and those international controlling guiding and governing documents are equally attentive to how each and all of those potential developments could be weaponized so that the language of those treaties allows greater surveillance, oversight and governance.
And I must tell you, there has been progress on that front, which has been encouraging.
We all have devices in our homes that emit radio frequencies, Wi-Fi, phones, Bluetooth, could a weapon like this actually hijack existing electronics, or does it still require a purpose built device aimed at a home or person or whatnot?
Sure the answer is yes. Both of those questions.
Okay, and you can elaborate on that.
Well, I mean, I think that the issue there is there would need to be some form of device that could then engage either an existing system to corrupt that system, purline or as you say, hijack that system, or to completely bypass that system or use that system as a noise back.
And there's a noise background to be able to then provide additional forms of either sonic and or electromagnetic frequency energy that would then corrupt the environment.
Dr. G, Havana syndrome is one weapon and you've spent your career studying how brain science can be weaponized.
Your new book, Bioethics and Brains is about exactly this. Are you aware of other technologies that can affect the human brain from a distance?
Give us an example. Someone at home could understand.
Sure, so let's reframe what we mean by a distance.
A standoff type of engagement, I think what becomes very important for people to understand is that the new environment is not necessarily one of weapons of mass destruction.
Oh yes, let's face it, we're still certainly worried about the nuclear threat without a doubt, the radiological threat without a doubt, the explosive threat without a doubt.
However, the new science and new technology is also allowing for weapons of maximum disruption and that disruption can occur on a variety of levels.
It can occur in an individual in a group of targeted individuals or more broadly within a collective or with random individuals. Now what are we really talking about here?
Some of the things that actually keep me up at night, for example, are the use of synthetic biology and gene editing.
Perhaps everyone is familiar with some of the new gene scissor or gene editing techniques, most notably something like CRISPR.
And that's gotten a lot of publicity over the past few years. Well, the ability to modify the genetic code of a variety of different organisms, bacteria, viruses, fungi, living organisms, small mammals, insects,
creates a tremendous amount of power to then change what that physical organism is, the way it acts, what it does, and its relative risks, threats, and harms that could be posed to humans, to animals, to crops.
Now if we go one step further and then we also look at other types of manifestations of same, we know that you add artificial intelligence to the mix.
And now what you have is, if you will, a computational partner that might be able to literally spit out, spool up, develop a whole host of potential algorithms for how a bad actor might be able to use gene editing techniques, synthetic biology techniques.
To make what our group has been referring to as precision pathologies and precision pathogens, taking existing microbes, for example, that may here to for have been benign and changing them in some way, to make them far more harmful, far more morbidly inducing, may make them far more inducing of sickness, or perhaps even lethal.
To make brand new microbes, viruses, fungi, that we've not encountered before, or to take existing substances, for example, something like toxins, organic toxins.
And we know that there are plant toxins, we know that there are fungal toxins, and of course most recently, as divulged by our European allies, the use of various animal toxins, amphibian reptile, fish, toxins.
In this particular case, the poison dart frog toxin that was used to assassinate a position leader Navaulny, clearly was not something that the individuals had to go into some jungle remote to be able to extract the skin oozing of this frog, but rather could be synthetically created, and when there is that synthetic then bridge.
What that then allows is for these substances to be more stable, to be more potent, to be more deliverable, and in some cases to be far more covert.
In other words, when we talk about things at a distance, one of the distance factors we now need to worry about is not how far away the individual is who's doing the attacking, but how far away the attacker can get before those who are attacked recognize they've been attacked.
So these new techniques, not only in molecular biology and genetics, but also in computation, in big data that allows accessibility to medical records, to artificial intelligence that allows permutations and combinations of chemical and physical structures that can allow bad actors to make new weaponized forms of biological agents.
And even the use of drones as delivery systems for small amounts of these biological agents to very specified targets, all increase what is referred to as the risk and threat space and their potential clear and present harm.
Your work isn't just about damaging the brain, it's also about influencing it.
Can this technology alter someone's judgment without them knowing? And you called this a beta test earlier, were those people targets or test subjects in your opinion?
I think those two concepts are inextricable. I think they are one and the same. An initial target is always viewed as what can we do with this? Did it work?
I mean in any scenario firing anything off, whether it's something ballistic, whether it's an arrow, whether it's a sword, how good is this? Does it do what is intended to do and what are the manifest effects of that?
Not only necessarily on the battlefield, but the longer term effects in terms of what types of resources, services, economics of care, then be rendered to these individuals that then put a burden on whatever those individuals forces are with.
Those societies there with the cultures, the armies, whatever. So I think you have to take a look at manifest effects as we say way downrange as well.
But to your question specifically, I think that the issue then becomes well, what things can be done and what things should be done or should not be done.
So in a situation such as as the ones we have here where you're looking at a variety of other ways to influence individuals, one of the new, if you will buzz words that's become increasingly popular and I think realistically so, is the idea of very sophisticated cognitive engagement.
What some would refer to as cognitive warfare, which isn't just psychological operations, it's actually more than that. It takes a three dimensional view of the human person as certainly having a biology, certainly existing in a social environment.
And that the bridge between that biology and that social environment is their psychology. We respond to our environments and to other psychologically. We take that information and perceive and react to our environments psychologically.
So the ability to now target aspects of environments, the ability to now selectively seek to affect psychologist of individuals groups and collectives, the ability to perhaps change vulnerabilities, biases,
vulnerabilities of individuals and collectives biology either directly or indirectly or become part of that potential palette of what cognitive engagement or what some would refer to as cognitive warfare constitutes.
So one question comes to mind with with this technology. Is there a concern that this could be scaled up such that it could be deployed as a weapon of mass destruction that you could lack of a better way of putting it, detonate one of these things over a city and have mass effect on the entire population?
So if we're talking about forms of directable energies, yes, we've already seen that. In fact, the issue was sort of a reverse consideration generating, for example, long range acoustic devices or ultrasonic end or perhaps infrasonic devices of large scale. Well, we've done that.
And the issue there is they're very large and they're certainly conspicuous. I mean, you're not going to hide one of these things per se. The same could be true of, let's say, large scale microwave devices, a large scale microwave dish is not something that is going to be used clandestinely.
I mean, clearly just the size of this thing necessary to be able to generate that mass effect would mean that it would be very conspicuous. So the challenge was not, well, could we use these types of things or could one use these types of things in a broad way against certain collectives and aggregation of troops or aggregation of people?
We know that's possible. The issue there is that once you're aware that the opponent has these, well, then you're getting into the domain of electronic warfare. We're now you're getting technology against technology and we've been doing that for a long, long time.
But the scalability is not scalability to great size. I think the more incumbent risk threat and perhaps harm will be scalability to ever smaller sizes that allow far more precision targeting rather than mass casualty effect.
And of course, the issue there is also one of a tremendous cognitive rippling effect because one then asks a question who's next. And so I think our peer competitors and adversaries recognize that. We recognize that of our peer competitors and adversaries.
And that's the nature of that current competition in that weaponology space, not necessarily to make something that's going to be weapons of mass destruction. There are plenty of things in the current armament area of nations and even non state actors that we can use for those means.
These are not buck shot devices. These are shot shot devices. And that's what renders them perhaps ever more elegant in their exquisiteness of nefarious use.
Stanford immunologist Dr. Gary Nolan has published research on brain abnormalities in people with close encounters with UAP or unidentified anomalous phenomenon. Is there any overlap with what you saw in Havana syndrome patients?
First of all, I have to really applaud Dr. Nolan's work. He does incredibly good work and he is a very, very sharp and very meticulous and rigorous researcher. And so there's very little that would come out of Dr. Nolan's laboratory that would leave any room for doubt.
I mean, the rigor of his science is paramount.
What's interesting is in the conversations I've had with Dr. Nolan and I know Dr. Nolan is that you're dealing with energy. And the question then becomes, well, are there multiple exposure types of energy?
Even some that might be benign, for example, individuals who are working around energetic technologies that are utilizing microwaves that are utilizing things across the electromagnetic spectrum that might be using various forms of sonic energy.
What is the risk of exposure to those individuals? Now this is taking on an occupational safety and health set of parameters, risks, considerations and concerns.
But what's interesting about the UAP phenomenon is exactly that, not knowing what these things are. And then also noting that in some individuals, such as those who were examined by Dr. Nolan, there seem to be discrete objective findings that would suggest that there are both functional changes, utilizing some of the functional magnetic resonance imaging and tracked tracing.
As well as perhaps structural changes that would suggest that these individuals too may have been exposed to some form of energy that had a physiological effect.
There's a location in Utah called Skinwalker Ranch where government personnel and researchers have reported nausea, disorientations, skin burns, neurological symptoms.
Does that sound like directed energy exposure to you?
I don't know the details of Skinwalker Ranch. So I can't speak to that specifically since I say yes or no. I mean only what I have read, what I have heard, and what I've encountered in what I'll call passing professional circles.
My work has not directly engaged anything with the Skinwalker Ranch.
But I mean if you're considering similarity of report, if you're considering similarity of anecdote in terms of circumstance, situations, timing, what the actual subjective objective features of those individuals who've made these reports are, they seem similar enough.
I mean clearly I think they would seem similar enough to at least warrant further investigation.
If you have treaties for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, there's nothing that covers these sort of neuro weapons, correct?
Not exactly. We do sort of, let me explain.
The current signatory treaties, the biological toxins and weapons convention, the chemical weapons convention, certainly those nuclear prescriptions and prohibitions are broadly worded.
And in some cases the broadness of that wording is intentional to be able to cast a wide blanket to capture any and all possible developments that might be included.
And therefore could be weaponized. There are also things such as the European export system that controls what types of precursors might be moved around so as to be able to prevent synthesis of certain things.
However, I think an important consideration is how fast is the science and the technology moving?
So one of the areas that had been somewhat overlooked, particularly in the biological toxins weapons convention, is the development of neurological technologies, neuro devices, neuro tech.
And since 2016, primarily through the work of the Australia group, that has actually brought that to the attention of the review committee of the biological toxins and weapons convention.
And some of the very, very notable work of one of my colleagues, Dr. Diane D'Eulis, and some of the work that we've done together, coupled with some of the work that has been done with NATO and a colleague of ours in the UK, Dr. Malcolm Dando,
there has been increased attention to what these signatory treaties focus upon. And one of the problems has been that many of these treaties are what we call nominal. In other words, they'll name certain things.
Substance X, drug X, biological peptide, X, Y, or Z, that's a problematic issue and should be prohibited, prescribed, overseen or governed.
Where it begins to get problematic is the technologies, technologies such as directable energy technologies, many of them that can be used and developed for therapeutic purposes.
Many of these toxins can be used as research probes or even therapeutically, for example, one that's probably most common and familiar to your listening audience, would be botulinum toxin, both toxin.
So part of the dilemma, part of the challenge, but I think also the real opportunity, is to be able to combine what's referred to as dual use research of concern considerations, and those are specific considerations that were developed at the Azzillamar conference, for example, 20, 30 years ago,
that specifically looked at types of research that could be moving in directions that might be concerning, that might produce some deliverable, some result, some method, that could be uptaken into various other agendas and therefore could be used for harm.
So combining dual use research of concern considerations issues, protocols and governances with the biological toxins and weapons convention, and as my colleague Dan Gerstind, formerly of Rand and I reported reviewing that convention.
I mean, there are what we call review conferences and review committees every so often to the biological toxins and chemicals weapons convention, but specifically reviewing towards revising the language, not necessarily just to name a thing, but to also begin to focus up range a bit.
In other words, upstream, what are some bio-manufacturing processes, what are some trade processes, what about tacit use of international talent skills?
How are groups of laboratories, perhaps working together, and how might those collaborations yield products that could be utilized for capricious or nefarious means?
So I think what it takes is both that broad lens of the current treaties and conventions, coupled with some very granular and specific facets of those lens, that allow a much more detailed examination of the current science and technology,
and how that science and technology could be duly used for purposes that could render risk threatened harm.
Michael Beck, the first person to ever report Havana Syndrome that we publicly know about died in January, Parkinson's at 45, incredibly young, workers comp denied, and we hear this figure that, say, around 1500 people have reported symptoms.
Do you think the real number of people that have been affected by AHI is significantly higher?
Well, I think that the 1500 number figure is certainly at this point appropriate with regard to those, as I said, who are in a validation pipeline.
I mean, I can speak directly to at least 100 additional who are not only in that pipeline have been validated, but at this point are in what we call sort of a care pipeline, a care algorithm.
But I think what's important to understand is that this was not a one-off.
I mean, this was not just something that happened in Havana.
And although we tend to look at the Havana Syndrome as a sentinel event, and it may have been in terms of public awareness,
the use of directed energy to be able to disrupt technology, equipment, and perhaps personnel is not something that just happened in Havana.
It's been going on literally for decades prior to that at a much more constrained and a much more limited scale and level.
But what Havana really did was helped to really pull back the shade, open the aperture publicly, as well as professionally within the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, law enforcement communities,
interpol worldwide, NATO.
To be able to recognize, as I mentioned earlier, that these techniques and technologies are to the point now where they're scalable and fieldable that allows a much broader operational use.
And what we're now seeing is that not only are those technologies, such as the ones that were used, for example, in Havana, viable.
But this may actually represent an iteration, a developmental pathway, if you will, whereby these technologies are now being improved, are being embellished, are being combined.
So the science and technology does not stand still.
And a pace with that should be that our insight, our investigation, and our diligence should not stand still as well, but should remain in step if not ahead of these scientific and technological developments to recognize those ways that they can be weaponized.
And what we need to do to define that, detect that, defend against that and deter it.
A source told me something that I just can't let go of.
When I asked why elements of the government would bury this, they said it's because Havana Syndrome is essentially a gateway that it opens the door to an entire ecosystem of weapons that both sides have.
Does that resonate with you?
I really can't comment to that one way or the other. I mean, for a number of reasons, not least of which is because it's way above my pay grade, so to speak.
I mean, the machinations of higher government within, not only various government agencies, but even politically, have insights and intentionalities and reasons, rationales for what is done.
And I certainly can't speak to that.
What I've said for years, since literally my first public presentations about this early in 2018, is that what's important to understand is that these types of technologies, excuse me, let me say it, that these types of technologies and these types of techniques are in fact part of the working compliment of what I called the big three, the United States and many of its international economic, technological and military allies have these devices.
I mean, certainly these devices are utilized in various occupational settings, as well. We know that China has these devices, and we know that the former Soviet Union was engaged in significant research in directable energies, and of course much of that portfolio has transferred to contemporary Russia.
So to say that, well, do these weapons exist and does that open a larger door? Well, that was a door that was already wide open, and that was part of the recognition.
Yeah, these things exist. Again, the key question at the time is, do they exist in a form of technological readiness that allows them to be scaled to be used in ways that are clandestined, if not covert? And I think we've already answered that question.
But I think the larger issue is one that speaks to the changing character, not nature, but the changing character of the implements of warfare.
What we're seeing is that a variety of new techniques and technologies are coming from the amalgamation, the convergence of different types of sciences, the physical sciences, the natural sciences, the life sciences, and even the social sciences.
And I think understanding that that scientific knowledge gives rise to certain technologies, and that new technologies gives rise to increasing scientific capabilities that can be used in a variety of ways, and that science and technology are not a unified event that occurs here in the United States or with our international scientific and technological allies.
But it occurs across the global stage, and we have to take a look at our international scientific and technological peer competitors, for example. But wait, there's more.
We also have to consider that the science and technology may also be available to proxies, to smaller states and state actors, to non-state actors, in some cases, to individuals who are seeking to work as, quote, "loan wolves,"
because some of these technologies are reverse-engineerable. Some of these things are capable eyes by using direct to consumer products.
And of course, we're also very much concerned about the international, do-it-yourself market. Again, sometimes you refer to as the bio-hacking market.
Not that there's anything intrinsically problematic with that nature and that practice of democratized science, not at all. But I think what has to be recognized is that that is a fairly vulnerable community.
It is a community that can be penetrated by nefarious and capricious actors, and then can be manipulated, used, vulnerableized, to be able to create certain things within soverities that could then be used for a variety of potentially malevolent purposes.
And the good news is that here in the United States, our federal Bureau of Investigation has established a very solid working discourse and dialogue and cooperation with not only the United States, but the international, do-it-yourself science and technology, the hacker community, to be able to afford some level of oversight and protection without restricting the democratization or practices of their science.
But I think the take-home message here is to your earlier point about governments and apertures and the question, why? The technology is out there. The science is out there. Certainly it's out there with regard to what we're capable of doing and what they're capable of doing.
And so I think what becomes important to understand is just because there is capability does not in any way directly infer or indicate use, nor does it incur direct intent.
And of course there's always the problem of attributability. And that's particularly difficult with these types of things.
Because as we mentioned earlier, these types of operations can be rendered certainly clandestinely, if not completely covertly. And so the question then becomes, well, what happened? And then even when you define what happened, the question is, who done it? And can you prove who done it? And that's arduous.
So I think what we're seeing is a change in the character of the way warfare can be waged and is being waged based upon new developments in science and technology. And that by itself is not unique. We've always seen that.
If we look back across the centuries, whatever new developments in science and technology, however rudimentary they may have been, have characteristically been incorporated in some way into another in the defense of nations and the waging of wars. This just represents the next iteration of same.
The Biden White House wrote a statement backing the victims. And in the end, they never released it. What would stop a president from saying what his own advisors believed was true?
It's way above my pay grade.
I certainly can't speak to the political and I certainly can't speak to the intent and the actions of any particular political figure. The reason being that political figures deal with a number of different competing contingencies that ultimately are responsible for making their decisions in obligatory way to be able to serve the public.
I think what is notable, however, of that from that administration, what is very notable is that that really represented the first time when then Secretary Austin came forth and made the public declaration that these anomalous health incidences are real or veritable and that those individuals who feel that they may have been subjected to this type of injury or insult should not feel any shame stigma or bias about coming forward and seeking care.
And I think that was an important step.
If you had five minutes to brief the president of the United States on this issue, what would you tell him needs to happen right now? And then second part of that, what would you like the public to know about all of this?
The two part question. So let me get into the oval office of the briefing room first. I mean, I think the issue here is Mr. President. There are science and technologies that are being developed that can be used for very, very beneficial means, but they can also be leveraged for very, very influential if not harmful means.
And it's important that we focus on the way science and technology is being developed and used not just here in the United States, but worldwide so that we can develop a stance of preparedness, knowledge readiness and response in a way that is proportional to the growing risks and threats that these science and technologies may yield if in fact they're weaponizing these ways.
So it would conclude my presidential brief to the public. I think it's important to remain aware of scientific fact. I mean, I think it's far too easy to be misinformed.
I'm not finger pointing in any way at the public or anywhere else. I think these days were confronted with a ubiquity of information. And so realistically, it's a question of the public becomes an information consumer.
Who do we listen to? What is real? What isn't real? What should I pay attention to? And I think the idea of utilizing viable resources, for example, such as this, that present balanced scientific information, presented in ways that are understandable.
Grounded wholly, in fact, become viable resources for the public. And what the public should understand is that knowing the nature of the risk and the threat, quote, that's out there is an important step in defining it in conjoining the public to a whole of nation response of awareness, definition, discernment, detection and defense.
And aware public, a knowledgeable public is a participatory, a collegial public that can work in public defense with those entities within the government that are there to protect them.
Dr. Giordano, thank you so much for joining us. This has really been eye opening. And I have to say a bit, bit frightening. But thank you for your work on this. And thank you for coming on the show.
Thank you so very much. It was a pleasure to be here.
Folks, if you enjoyed our interview with Dr. James Giordano, you will love this episode. Thanks for tuning in and tell your friends about our show.