S8 Ep38: Directed energy and Havana Syndrome with Dr. James Giordano

[00:00:00] . Due to the themes of this podcast, listener discretion is advised. Lock your doors, close

[00:00:09] the blinds, change your passwords. This is Secrets and Spies.

[00:00:28] Secrets and Spies is a podcast that dives into the world of espionage, terrorism, geopolitics

[00:00:33] and intrigue. This podcast is produced and hosted by Chris Carr.

[00:00:37] On today's podcast I am joined by Dr James Giordano. Dr Giordano served as the consulting

[00:00:43] neuroscientist on research into the original cases of Havana Syndrome. On this episode

[00:00:49] we look at directed energy and how it affects the brain. Just before we begin, if you're

[00:00:54] enjoying this podcast, please consider supporting us directly by becoming a Patreon subscriber.

[00:00:59] All you need to do is just go to patreon.com forward slash secrets and spies and depending

[00:01:04] on which level you pick you'll get a free coaster or coffee cup and also you'll get

[00:01:08] access to our Patreon exclusive show Extra Shot which comes out twice a month after

[00:01:13] every espresso martini. Hope you find this interesting and thank you for listening.

[00:01:18] Take care.

[00:01:20] Dr James Giordano, welcome to the podcast.

[00:01:45] Thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here and thanks for your interest in my

[00:01:47] work.

[00:01:48] Always thank you. It's great to have you on. For the benefit of the listeners, please

[00:01:51] just tell us a bit about yourself and your professional experience.

[00:01:55] Yeah sure. So I'm the Pellegrino Center Professor of Neurology and Biochemistry

[00:02:00] and Director of the Sub-Program Military Medical Ethics at Georgetown University

[00:02:05] Medical Center and School of Medicine in Washington DC and I also serve as the Executive

[00:02:09] Director of the Institute for Bio Defense Research which is a federally funded think

[00:02:14] in the greater DC area. It's dedicated to looking at those issues of the way that

[00:02:18] biological chemical and radiological devices techniques could be leveraged in ways that

[00:02:23] affect global public health.

[00:02:25] Thank you for that. I brought you on today because I want to have a chat about Havana

[00:02:27] syndrome because there's been this 60 minutes documentary that just came out a couple

[00:02:30] of weekends ago and there's been obviously a lot of talk about it and I wanted to

[00:02:35] kind of get an idea of the sort of science behind it all because it's all to some

[00:02:41] people the whole idea of directed energy weapons thing sounds almost the realm of

[00:02:45] science fiction but it really isn't anymore. So what I'll do, I'll first of all ask

[00:02:49] you just to give us kind of an overview about the Havana syndrome attacks and some

[00:02:54] of the sort of symptoms experienced by victims just for people who are not totally

[00:02:57] familiar with all of that.

[00:02:58] Yeah sure. I mean I think also let me refer your listeners and your listening

[00:03:03] audience to a wonderful, wonderful broadcast that was aired about a year and a half

[00:03:08] ago and that was on CNN and that was the work of the investigative medical

[00:03:11] reporter Sanjay Gupta, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. And Dr. Gupta did a wonderful job in terms

[00:03:16] of the due diligence of dealing with some of the individuals who were affected,

[00:03:21] dealing with particular entities within the National Institutes of Health,

[00:03:25] the National Academies. I think that really also provides a very, very nice

[00:03:29] basis for understanding that when coupled to the 60 minutes reports really plays

[00:03:34] connect the dots quite well. As relate to these devices, let's not call them

[00:03:39] weapons, let's just call them devices because I think weapons brings on a

[00:03:43] particular, one can infer certain things about weapons and I don't think

[00:03:48] that's necessarily any correct inference but if we're going to call them

[00:03:52] weapons, let's be very general. A weapon is anything that can be used to affect

[00:03:58] another. In other words, to change that other's bellicose intention, aggressiveness,

[00:04:04] etc. In other words, their means of contending against others. And again,

[00:04:10] these can run the spectrum for things that can make other individuals your friends to

[00:04:15] things that can actually be injurious if not mortal to others. So the issue here is what might

[00:04:22] these individuals in Havana been exposed to? We did a number of things. When I was first

[00:04:28] brought on in late 2016, early 2017 as the consulting neuroscientist,

[00:04:34] I was presented with about two dozen case files. These were individuals who had originally

[00:04:39] presented to their healthcare providers in Cuba and then ultimately triaged to the care

[00:04:45] of Dr. Michael Hofer in Florida. Each and all these individuals presented with a very,

[00:04:51] discrete set of subjective symptoms and objective signs. Interestingly, one of the

[00:05:01] important dynamics is that these individuals had been on the job for a long time. These were

[00:05:07] not individuals who were naive to the job. They were not individuals who were new on the job.

[00:05:12] They were experienced intelligence operators who were under the employ and within service of

[00:05:18] the Department of State at the U.S. Embassy in Havana. Point number one. Point number two,

[00:05:24] these were also individuals who had no apparent end or divulge secondary or tertiary gain.

[00:05:29] They were not looking to come off the job. They were not looking to transfer.

[00:05:33] They were good at their job and they wanted to continue doing the job.

[00:05:37] And each and all these individuals presented with what we call this constellation of

[00:05:41] features subjectively and objectively that were in fact debilitating to them to the point

[00:05:47] where they were no longer able to perform their job satisfactorily. And it was also a disruption

[00:05:52] of their activity of daily living. They complained of pain in the head, ringing in the ears,

[00:05:58] disorientation, vertigo, upset stomach, as well as the inability to not only concentrate

[00:06:05] and focus but also to simply do the basic tasks of their job and any kind of multitasking

[00:06:09] was impossible as well. They exhibited motoric balance effects, loss of fine and gross motor

[00:06:15] control, and this was highly disruptive and in some cases actually destructive to their capability

[00:06:20] to function. Interestingly as well they did not discuss this among themselves at that time

[00:06:26] and that's an important consideration I think that needs to be maintained. So the idea of

[00:06:32] what we'll call communicative cross-contamination was not a factor. They only became aware that

[00:06:37] the fact their colleagues had been affected after they had been triaged to Florida. At

[00:06:41] that point it's oh you're here, you're here too so to speak. What's really important is you know

[00:06:47] subjective symptoms can occur due to a range of factors and again the subjectivity is the key

[00:06:54] point there but objective findings using very specific clinical tests within very precise

[00:07:00] parameters are very difficult if not impossible number one to fake and number two are very

[00:07:07] elusive patterns and what we saw was that there are very similar patterns again within a

[00:07:13] range of individual variation of individuals particular unique physiologies and how people

[00:07:18] respond to things but it was clearly indicative that something had happened to these individuals

[00:07:25] is it possible that it may have been something psychogenic or sociogenic yes

[00:07:29] that's always a possibility let's face it no one is immune irrespective of what everyone's

[00:07:35] background experience etc no one is immune but again there are a number of factors that contribute

[00:07:41] to this type of psychogenicity or sociogenicity and number one not all in each of them are present

[00:07:46] and number two it didn't fit that pattern the other issue is when you actually look at the very

[00:07:52] very specific objective features that were evaluated both acutely and then subacutely

[00:07:58] again these are not things that can be faked that's not to say that if an individual

[00:08:03] presents with what used to be called a psychosomatic disorder or functional neurological

[00:08:06] disorder there aren't expressive outpourings of this i mean there aren't measurable features

[00:08:11] in fact there are however there were some very very discrete factors that dealt with these

[00:08:18] individuals they were particular individuals doing a particular job at a particular site

[00:08:24] and so that was the first phase of what we might call the populational pattern or the

[00:08:29] subject pattern is it possible for example that something happened to these individuals on the

[00:08:35] job based upon something they were doing well the process that i engaged was a process called

[00:08:40] abductive forensics in other words these are the signs and symptoms you're presented with

[00:08:46] and then what types of things could cause this and i was also afforded the opportunity

[00:08:51] to engage again working under strict hippocontrols with anonymity these

[00:08:55] individuals medical files their metadata as well as data about the environment the

[00:08:59] architectures to geographies etc so it was initially considered what what types of things

[00:09:06] could do this and from the types of things that are possible what types of things would

[00:09:09] be most probable the methods that were used that i employed at that time were well accepted

[00:09:14] and standardized methods that are still used to date their methods are used for presumptive

[00:09:18] risk evaluation for example within the department of defense and within the veterans

[00:09:21] administration here in the united states and elsewhere if individuals are suspected to be

[00:09:26] exposed to something during some type of occupational employer or some type of

[00:09:31] domiciliary engagement or whatever in other words how do we determine if an individual may

[00:09:35] have been exposed to something and the actual methods are what we call the ep cots method

[00:09:40] and use of modified bradford hill criteria which which allow for consideration of is the

[00:09:46] thing that we're considering real is it there what are its known effects what are its effects

[00:09:50] in humans what are the effects that we're seeing in these individuals could this individual have

[00:09:54] been exposed to this where how etc so it's a multi-factorial and multi-criterial analytic

[00:09:59] and assessment method and you rule things out as well as rule things in what kind of things

[00:10:06] could have done this well the first thing you consider is might they have been exposed to

[00:10:10] something environmentally i mean realistically they're living out on the economy a number

[00:10:16] of things could have affected them anything ranging from household chemicals paints industrial sprays

[00:10:24] occupational exposures environmental exposures pesticides pollen fungi each and all of these

[00:10:32] were examined in relative detail and and ruled out i mean certainly represented a probability

[00:10:37] but the possibility was very very low if not close to zero and the reason for that once again

[00:10:42] is it didn't fit the pattern these were specific individuals again if this was something

[00:10:46] environmental if this was something within the domicile more broadly you would have seen a

[00:10:52] broader pattern of exposure you wouldn't have just seen key individuals being affected by this

[00:10:56] in a very selective and very if you will precise in a specific way as well if they had

[00:11:02] been exposed to these types of things there would have been artifacts it would have been

[00:11:05] artifacts of these substances both in the environment and there were evaluations of that

[00:11:10] there were none and there would have been artifacts of these things on these people

[00:11:16] or in these people in other words it would have been traceable artifacts and there certainly

[00:11:19] were none they moreover the dose necessary to be able to incur these effects been

[00:11:25] considerable and at those doses necessary to incur these effects you would have seen other

[00:11:30] effects you would have seen other manifestations physiological pathological manifestations and

[00:11:36] those were not seen so we ruled those possibilities out is it possible that they may have been

[00:11:42] exposed to a drug or some drug food interaction again walking through all those possibilities

[00:11:49] yes there are a number of drugs that could cause these types of things both subjectively

[00:11:53] and objectively but here again the dosimetry necessary to do this would have been quite

[00:11:59] different you would have needed a larger dose of the drug or a more durable dose of the

[00:12:03] drug over a longer period of time you would have seen other effects produced by these drugs aside

[00:12:08] effects it would have been both norm and abnormal and you also would have had recovery

[00:12:12] of certain metabolites of the drug which of course this was not the case so we can rule out

[00:12:16] a drug is it also possible that perhaps there may have been some other factor some other

[00:12:22] environmental factor bacteria virus fungus yes particularly looking on the fungal side that

[00:12:32] may have been a factor but here once again you would have seen other signs and symptoms and there

[00:12:36] would have been other attributes and or artifacts it would have been retrievable geographically

[00:12:41] we rule that out well what else could have occurred well certainly we recognize that

[00:12:47] another possibility is these individuals may have been exposed to some technology

[00:12:52] that may have had an adverse effect and again this was not unknown this was not sort of

[00:12:57] reaching into the realm of the impossible the improbable or the untenable we know

[00:13:02] based upon existing evidence and based upon the technological readiness level of these types of

[00:13:07] technologies that various forms of radio frequency rangeable acoustics and ultrasonics can produce

[00:13:15] an unusual constellation of features if individuals are exposed to them directly in

[00:13:19] other words downrange and or if they're exposed to them orthogonally or repeated over a long

[00:13:24] period of time is it therefore possible that these individuals may have been using something

[00:13:29] on their job site some form of surveillance equipment some form of technological disruptive

[00:13:34] equipment or simply been exposed to some form of equipment or technology within their job site

[00:13:41] that had a latent effect that therefore became manifest when they were at home

[00:13:46] yeah certainly a possibility so it was then further explored but what kind of things

[00:13:50] were these individuals using on the job and again here's where things get a little ambiguous

[00:13:56] in what can be discussed in an open forum or not suffice it to say that what i was then informed

[00:14:01] is that no these individuals were not utilizing something on the job that would have occurred

[00:14:07] these effects is it possible that this may still be the case that there was something there

[00:14:14] on the job that for whatever reason i was not briefed into that compartment therefore i did not

[00:14:19] have that need to know yes absolutely does the united states possess devices that can be used for

[00:14:26] surveillance or surveillance or communications disruption that function within the ultrasonic

[00:14:31] and rangeable acoustics domains yes absolutely are we the only country that possesses these

[00:14:37] devices and has ongoing research development test evaluation and use no we know that our

[00:14:43] trans-pacific peer competitor and our transatlantic peer competitor has evidentiary long-standing and

[00:14:49] well documented research development test evaluation and ongoing employment of such devices

[00:14:56] for a variety of different applications occupational safety and testing occupational uses as well as

[00:15:02] potential dual usability in other words these things can be used in national security

[00:15:07] intelligence and defense operations again as means of surveillance and surveillance disruption

[00:15:12] and as means of communication disruption is it therefore possible that these individuals in

[00:15:19] havana were exposed to this type of technology either as being again downrange of a surveillance

[00:15:27] operation or a technical disruption operation some combination of both that then incurred this

[00:15:33] artifactual side effect that was physiologically disruptive absolutely and of high probability

[00:15:40] could it also be possible that this may have represented a direct targeting of these individuals

[00:15:47] to incur some biologic or physiological disruption yes that's possible as well

[00:15:55] so in terms of the probabilities that we then came up with as a consequence of this very

[00:16:01] precise process of abductive forensics and presumptive risk evaluation we were able to

[00:16:06] rule out toxins drugs chemical exposures environmental exposures of fungi bacteria viruses

[00:16:15] we then considered is it possible that there may have been some accidental exposure to perhaps

[00:16:22] an ultrasonic device and here one of the things that became important for us is that

[00:16:27] the these types of ultrasonic devices are easily purchased i mean these are available

[00:16:32] direct to consumer for example now one can go to a resource like the sharper image here in the

[00:16:37] united states and just look up ultrasonic household protectants and they're used to repel small

[00:16:45] mammals and vermin but they're also used to repel potential intruders and the technology

[00:16:51] exists one of the primary patents for rangeable acoustic and ultrasonic devices was filed here

[00:16:56] in the united states in 2004 and the patent was then commercialized through something known as a

[00:17:02] crater and a number of companies picked that up and the initial device did not have an auditory

[00:17:08] signature but when commercialized and for safety purposes the auditory signature component

[00:17:13] was then added to these devices well is it possible these individuals in havana were exposed

[00:17:19] to some kind of anti-vermin protection device that may have been installed in their

[00:17:23] domicile to keep them free of pests absolutely absolutely and we then assessed and evaluated

[00:17:30] things like custodial chains purchasing chains installation records extolation records nothing

[00:17:36] nothing so the idea that this may have been an accidental or a factual exposure to what might

[00:17:41] have been for example environmental protection through the use of ultrasonics well we rule

[00:17:46] that out so what we have at that point we had is the most probable resource was that in fact

[00:17:54] these individuals have been exposed to some form of acoustic and or ultrasonic device

[00:18:00] or exposure technology that was consequential to a variety of particular purposes and intents

[00:18:07] surveillance surveillance and communications disruption or direct human factor effect

[00:18:12] what became interesting is at the time we also considered the possibility of some form of

[00:18:17] electromagnetic exposure we were considering for example radar or some other form of radar based

[00:18:24] or sonar based detection primarily radar based and it's known for example that a phenomenon

[00:18:30] known as the fray effect can occur whereby exposure particularly close range exposure to

[00:18:35] radar pulses can have a disruptive effect on human physiology was it possible then that these

[00:18:40] individuals may have been exposed to some form of radar or similar electromagnetic

[00:18:44] pulsatile device yeah it's certainly possible and we know the effects there are multiple

[00:18:49] they're primarily functional effects and disrupting the actual functional capability

[00:18:53] of a physiological system particularly conductive physiological system like the neurological

[00:18:58] system whereby the actual function of that system is contingent upon sort of electrochemical

[00:19:04] interactions where you then get network effects in the if you build a chain of

[00:19:08] activity that is the nervous system and other effects on a body as well but again i mean the

[00:19:14] issue there would be that the type of device necessary to do that would certainly not be

[00:19:20] inconspicuous i mean this would require a fairly large and rather evident radar dish

[00:19:27] so it's not something they wouldn't have thought well yeah i saw this thing didn't think

[00:19:31] two things of it next thing you know i'm getting these effects point number one

[00:19:33] point number two is we also consider what could it also have been some form of microwave device

[00:19:37] but we ruled that out early on because here again the the technology necessary to be able to

[00:19:44] allow a sustained delivery of a directable microwave has three basic limitations number

[00:19:50] one it requires a lot of power number two the power source necessary to drive that and

[00:19:55] sustain that power is in fact quite large number three that would render that device

[00:20:01] number three that would render that device i mean possibly fieldable and operationalizable

[00:20:08] but very conspicuous the other thing is is when you're delivering that level of

[00:20:13] microwave energy it's going to have a thermal artifact however here's the interesting point

[00:20:22] late in 2018 and early in 2019 through ongoing collaborations with another colleague

[00:20:28] of mine named professor edel shah miloglu at the university of new mexico and albuquerque

[00:20:34] who was also involved in some work with with this project it became apparent that the current

[00:20:41] state of technological readiness of very rapidly pulsed microwaves was sufficiently advanced

[00:20:49] to allow these to be scaled and therefore render them fieldable and potentially operationalizable

[00:20:54] point number one point number two was that the research development test evaluation

[00:21:01] and limited applications in real world use of such rapidly pulsed microwaves was already

[00:21:07] underway and was already occurring not only in the united states but also among our international

[00:21:13] peer competitors most notably our trans pacific competitor and much of the iterative research

[00:21:19] that has led to this has occurred by our transatlantic peer competitor my ongoing work

[00:21:26] with professor shah miloglu became far more aware of not only technological readiness level

[00:21:31] of rapidly pulsed microwaves but also of the actual capability and the technology necessary

[00:21:36] to do that and and the the linchpin the the key factor here is the actual temporality

[00:21:42] the time span of the pulse needs to be very very very quick but the the use of lasers

[00:21:48] to rapidly pulse the microwave and perhaps to also provide some chaperoning effect in terms

[00:21:53] of directing the microwave has really been the boom that has allowed these microwaves

[00:21:58] to be pulsed in a very very rapid scale in other words a nanosecond scale that allows

[00:22:03] preservation of the microwave form but doing so so quickly reduces the thermal artifact

[00:22:09] effect in the words are not heat generative and number two also reduces the power requirement

[00:22:14] that renders this to be very very scalable ergo fieldable and operationalizable is it

[00:22:21] possible then that given this technology readiness level and the reality of these devices

[00:22:29] that this too could have been a possibility if not probability so our addended report in 2018

[00:22:36] early 2019 included the high possibility if not probability of the viable use of a scalable

[00:22:44] microwave rapidly pulsed microwave either in tandem with some form of rangeable acoustic

[00:22:51] ultrasonic device or in some combination of both you know one then the other or both together

[00:22:58] again without any presumption or without any attribution as to whether or not that represented

[00:23:03] a surveillance operation a surveillance disruption a communication disruption operation

[00:23:08] or in fact there was explicit intentionality to incur some form of disruption if not harm

[00:23:13] to human factors involved so that's where the havana investigations and analysis led us

[00:23:22] subsequent to havana it became noted that there had been other reported cases

[00:23:31] and many of those reported cases had a very similar professional profile

[00:23:36] many of those cases entered into what has been colloquially referred to as a verification and

[00:23:40] validation pipeline it takes a fair amount of time effort resources and engagement

[00:23:46] to be able to determine whether or not there's something there there

[00:23:49] or not and this takes time and certainly individuals were iteratively being fed into

[00:23:55] that pipeline as well i think it's of prime note to your listening audience that there have

[00:24:03] been literally thousands of reports from individuals who believe they may have been

[00:24:08] exposed to something of this nature whether it's directed energy or some type of other

[00:24:15] neurological device that may have rendered some harmful effect to them

[00:24:20] in the vast majority of those cases i mean we're talking 99 percent of those cases

[00:24:26] number one do not fit the pattern number two if in fact there are certain pattern similarities

[00:24:32] equivalences that would then incur well maybe let's examine this further have been proven

[00:24:36] to be something quite different realistically many of them are in fact psycho or sociogenic

[00:24:41] effects based upon the broad spread media outpouring as a consequence of media coverage

[00:24:47] of havana syndrome and you know this represents a number of things i mean it could be the

[00:24:52] worried well individuals who may simply be worried about this kind of thing

[00:24:56] individuals who are conflating signs and symptoms of a pre-existing condition or

[00:25:01] or a very benign condition with these types of things and in some cases these

[00:25:06] are also individuals who have something else going on some other form of physiological

[00:25:12] of physiological and or medical condition that produces similar signs and symptoms

[00:25:17] or in some cases that will produce a constellation of features that

[00:25:21] would allow them to sort of escalate their presentation i mean here we're talking about

[00:25:25] everything from mild hypochondriasis to something far more severe on the psychological

[00:25:29] scale but i think what's happened is that those subsequent cases have certainly muddied

[00:25:34] the waters a bit i mean those cases need to be evaluated and i'm certainly not saying those

[00:25:39] individuals don't suffer they do and if there's something wrong with them they require

[00:25:45] prudent pragmatic and durable care but again the problem is conflating apples and oranges

[00:25:52] so i think what what's important sort of the take home message is to recognize that the

[00:25:56] individuals who suffered whatever it was they suffered from and and i i am convinced again

[00:26:02] have argued as a scientist scientists can be wrong all the time it's part of the basis of

[00:26:06] it but i'm confident the methods that were used the techniques and tools that were used given

[00:26:12] the data and information that were applied and that were available that the conclusions that

[00:26:18] i and my group came to initially and then subsequently are in fact sound that something

[00:26:24] physical happened to those individuals in havana and it is very likely based upon the

[00:26:29] information that i've been receiving that something physical has happened to about 100

[00:26:35] other individuals worldwide subsequent to havana and that there have been thousands of cases

[00:26:43] of reports of things from people who believe they have been subjected to something that are

[00:26:49] quite different and are not representative of what happened in havana so that's where we stand

[00:26:56] today sir thank you very much for that that's a very detailed explanation that's brilliant

[00:26:59] and national academy of sciences also kind of came to a similar conclusion is that right

[00:27:04] that's correct the the academy report concurred with a number of those initial findings based

[00:27:10] upon their independent review not only of my work but of the actual data pool itself so this

[00:27:17] was essentially meta-analytic based upon not only what we had done but the actual data

[00:27:21] themselves inclusive of some of the subsequent cases so the academy report was was in many

[00:27:28] ways a report that had co-validation of what we had defined as the most probable resources of

[00:27:34] what had occurred to the individuals now i'm very interested in obviously the the cases

[00:27:39] that are should we say genuine cases that have the symptoms that we're talking about

[00:27:44] and i think you just said just now and it was 60 minutes also said it was about 100

[00:27:49] people have been affected by this what we call havana syndrome and i was wondering if you

[00:27:56] could talk to me a little bit about some of the specifics of the attack itself because one of the

[00:28:01] questions i was kind of puzzled by a little bit was if it's a directed attack at an individual

[00:28:07] can other people also be harmed if they were in the proximity of that person so should

[00:28:13] i don't know person a is the person as a target and i happen to be person b standing

[00:28:18] next to them is it possible that you know i could get injured standing next to person a

[00:28:22] yeah the idea of collateral damage yeah certainly absolutely i mean i think there's a number of

[00:28:28] variables there not least of which is the preservation of whatever represents the

[00:28:32] the the form of whatever this energy is in other words like anything else i mean think of think

[00:28:38] of a a spray of water if the spray of water is very very tight then clearly whoever you're

[00:28:43] spraying the water and it's going to be the individual who catches the soaking is it possible

[00:28:46] that other people standing around might get droplets or wet yeah sure but as that water

[00:28:52] diffuses as a consequence of time space exposure characteristics and the spray broadens well then

[00:28:59] clearly the effects are going to broaden by the same token the more concentrated the effect

[00:29:05] the more durable or the more severe is going to be the manifestation so you may be seeing

[00:29:10] spectrum of effect by individuals who are nearby but let me back up just a bit i don't i personally

[00:29:17] don't refer to these things as attacks because i think once you say that you then begin to

[00:29:23] incur some intent that the issue here may represent something directly against the

[00:29:27] human factor itself that does not fall within my purview that's a decision that others need

[00:29:32] to make my thought is that these represent exposures to some form of energy source that

[00:29:38] may be a directable energy source that could be used for a variety of things again surveillance

[00:29:43] technical disruption and of course to incur some form of personal disruption bodily disruption

[00:29:50] and physical harm but once you cross that threshold into presumptive intentionality

[00:29:58] that this is being used to incur physical harm that can be interpreted in a number of ways

[00:30:04] that are relevant to national security intelligence and defense and that also then incurs i think a

[00:30:11] response posture that would very importantly be seen as appropriate in other words now we're

[00:30:17] looking at proportionality of response based upon intent so we have to be very very cautious

[00:30:22] in causing these things true attacks against persons if in fact we're also considering that

[00:30:28] the effect against persons or on persons may be artifactual to some type of directed operation

[00:30:36] that is a surveillance operation or a disruptive operation against some form of communication

[00:30:42] technology or some other so again here i think that a bit of caution goes a long way with

[00:30:48] regard to the the prudence of what might be the implications and manifestations of using the

[00:30:54] word attack yes okay um then what i'm quite interested as well is you were touching upon it

[00:31:02] a bit earlier about the types of devices out there how do if i call it a directed energy

[00:31:09] device how does that device affect the brain well it depends on what the energy is so

[00:31:16] our initial consideration was well knowing that there is again a high level of technological

[00:31:21] readiness application and use of sonic devices yeah how do sonic devices particularly ultrasonic

[00:31:27] devices affect physiological tissues well can you see in a number of ways i mean clearly one of

[00:31:33] the things that ultrasonic devices can do is they create an impact in a fluid medium or a

[00:31:39] semi-fluid medium so what they'll do is i mean just if just take for example loud speaker

[00:31:46] one of your sound speakers and put it over water and really crank that loud speaker up and you'll

[00:31:51] see there's going to be a rippling effect in the water that's called a cavitation effect

[00:31:55] and the cavitation effect is not just a rippling but it also incurs sort of a turbulence

[00:32:00] so it creates this turbulent flow or turbulent disruption within fluid media okay we know that

[00:32:07] well fluid media are abundant in the human body our cells are predominantly composed of

[00:32:13] fluid and there are a number of organs that utilize various types of fluid lymphatic fluid

[00:32:19] endo-lymph fluid as the media in which their cells operate so for example the hearing organ

[00:32:24] of the inner ear the balance organs of the middle ear a number of hollow organs or hollow

[00:32:30] organs that utilize fluid exchange probably most notably blood and so impacting those organs

[00:32:37] by creating disrupted flow where you usually have fairly linear fairly smooth flow that now

[00:32:43] you get turbulence not only creates problems if we go to the fluid media themselves in other

[00:32:47] words you now have like a bubbling roiling kind of effect in the fluid that therefore

[00:32:53] disrupts whatever is going to be the cellular activities of things surrounding or using that

[00:32:57] fluid as the medium but can also then incur an effect against the walls around which that

[00:33:03] fluid are housed or incur or exist so i mean think of a container so now what you're doing

[00:33:10] is you're getting a turbulence effect on the container but please understand the container

[00:33:14] and these living tissues are exactly that they're living cells that can also respond to

[00:33:19] changes in pressure and smoothness of flow and overall activity level and the interaction

[00:33:25] between the fluid medium and the cellular medium which can then cause these cells to

[00:33:30] fire in an abnormal pattern in a disruptive pattern and this then creates if you will a

[00:33:35] chain effect so you have two media by which these sonic exposures of sonic stimuli can affect

[00:33:42] biological tissues one is by virtue of fluid disruption again across a range of fluid medium

[00:33:48] that are certainly transferable along the fluid media themselves in other words within that

[00:33:53] within whatever is going to be that receptacle of the fluid and or if we're talking about

[00:33:58] a piping system like the bloodstream it can actually induce sort of a turbulent flow in blood

[00:34:04] and or the tissues that house these fluids so taken together what you're getting is a potentially

[00:34:10] disruptive effect particularly if number one the stimulus is strong enough and number two

[00:34:15] the stimulus is durable enough so what are we talking about here well to sort of bring it

[00:34:21] over the finish line so to speak we're talking about an effect that could cause disruption of

[00:34:26] the balance organs of the inner ear by disrupting the fluid media of the inner ear and also the

[00:34:32] cells that are the the stimulus transmitting cells of the inner ear the balance and hearing

[00:34:37] organs that are then transmitting those signals to the brain if you overexcite those networks

[00:34:43] enough you then create something called an over excitation effect and basically what you do is

[00:34:50] you sort of overpower the system i mean basically you kind of short the system out

[00:34:54] and i'm being very colloquial the actual word for this is that you get an increase of

[00:34:58] increase in calcium conductance and then you get something called calcium excitotoxicity

[00:35:03] which can then lead to a change in the function and perhaps even the durability

[00:35:07] and existence of cells along this pathway point number one point number two is you can also

[00:35:13] disrupt the blood flow of the inner ear and the blood flow of the inner ear communicates with

[00:35:20] the blood flow of the brain which then creates turbulent flow in the blood flow to the brain

[00:35:24] which then produces something along the lines of a decompression sickness type injury that produces

[00:35:30] sort of a mini stroke if you will so you're getting a functional disruption by virtue of

[00:35:34] disrupting the neurological activity along this if you will chain of neurological command

[00:35:39] which can then lead to very durable changes in the way the these nodes and networks function

[00:35:45] particularly if repetitive and you can also have structural changes that occur as a consequence

[00:35:50] of disrupted blood flow which can then lead to change in tissue integrity perhaps local

[00:35:55] areas that look like a micro stroke and you incur structural damage that way again i think

[00:36:02] it's important to understand that many of these signs and symptoms are very similar

[00:36:06] to those you'd see with a mild to moderate head injury and again hearken back the hivana

[00:36:12] syndrome was initially referred to as the immaculate concussion if we examine what happens

[00:36:18] however electromagnetic energies is a little bit different you have to understand that many of the

[00:36:24] cells of the human body are what we call electrochemically conductive cells in other

[00:36:29] words they work by changes in chemistries that then induce a change in the ions that these

[00:36:36] cells use to literally create ionic currents so they work very similar to the way you would

[00:36:41] pass an electrical current along a network line the way this occurs in the brain is not so much

[00:36:46] sort of toe bone to foot bone to leg bone it doesn't so much work like a landline although

[00:36:51] there are certainly connectivities but rather it works more like a wi-fi system and we've come

[00:36:57] to realize this over the past 10 years and so given that i mean yes you need quote circuit

[00:37:03] boards to be able to conduct wi-fi type communications but one of the effects of

[00:37:09] electromagnetic pulsed energy is that it can disrupt both the functional aspects of those

[00:37:15] circuits and to some extent the circuits themselves because as certain circuits or

[00:37:20] nodes and networks will become overexcited they fuse whereas others will become disrupted

[00:37:27] and they will tend to shut off a simple case in point and i don't advocate that your listeners

[00:37:33] do this is if you take your cell phone which is essentially working with regard to wi-fi

[00:37:37] communications in other words it's not plugged into the wall it's not a phone line that comes

[00:37:42] through a set of actual cables many of the functions of the brain operate more like wi-fi

[00:37:48] than they do landline telephone take your cell phone and put it in the microwave for two seconds

[00:37:56] and i'm not actually advocating that they do this please yeah don't do that but what i'm

[00:38:01] saying is if you take the cell phone out it won't be hot you won't feel heat you won't get that

[00:38:07] thermal artifact but try to use the cell phone it might work but it's certainly not going to

[00:38:13] work the way it worked before and it will probably never work the way it worked before

[00:38:17] again so what we can find is that exposure to particular patterns particular again characteristic

[00:38:27] criteria of electromagnetic pulses can disrupt the node network integrity and therefore function

[00:38:32] of the brain so if you consider the brain to be similar akin to the way a cell phone works i

[00:38:38] mean clearly there are mechanical circuits there there are physical circuits there

[00:38:42] but it's working more on on sort of a wi-fi type arrangement if you if you impart

[00:38:49] significant electromagnetic pulse microwave pulse onto that quote circuit board

[00:38:55] you're going to disrupt the circuit board and that's one of the things that we know

[00:38:59] that particular forms of of directable energies particularly along the electromagnetic spectrum

[00:39:05] are capable of doing with excitable cells such as those in the nervous system brain

[00:39:11] so again here you have two viable technologies that currently are in a state of technological

[00:39:16] readiness for operational deploy that are capable of inducing these possibilities and

[00:39:22] therefore represent a high probability based upon what it was that we saw both in those

[00:39:27] individuals in Havana and subsequently those in the validation of verification pipeline.

[00:39:32] Thank you for that one quick note i was just going to add with regards to the

[00:39:36] the cases reported in the 60 minutes broadcast apparently they found evidence of an injury

[00:39:42] to the auditory and vestibular system of the brain starting with the inner ear i don't

[00:39:47] know if there's anything you want to say on that right i mean that that is basically

[00:39:51] uh corroborating what we had said here earlier that whether it was an acoustic device with an

[00:39:57] ultrasonic component that would therefore disrupt the fluid medium of the inner ear both the

[00:40:01] hearing organ and the balance organ and then incur damage along if you will that labeled

[00:40:06] line that neurological network that processes that information and or some form of directable

[00:40:12] electromagnetic energy that could also incur damage to the inner ear structures and or the

[00:40:16] neurological structures both of the ear and the brain there's now corroborative evidence to support

[00:40:21] those findings yeah well let's take a quick break and then we'll be right back

[00:40:35] So

[00:40:44] now um i'd like to talk a little bit about who's sort of doing research into this sort of portable

[00:40:49] energy technology if i put it that way you mentioned earlier in new mexico your colleague

[00:40:55] said that there's now scalable tech available because obviously we're talking about directed

[00:40:59] energy uh well we call them energy weapons again for a moment in my mind as you were

[00:41:04] saying earlier you might need something of a big satellite dish and a big power source

[00:41:08] but potentially is technology now that doesn't require such a large power source because it's

[00:41:12] using am i right it's using lasers to help sort of pulse the microwave is that correct

[00:41:17] that's correct i mean again i think the analogy here is think about when cell phones first

[00:41:22] came out i mean if you remember those first generation cell phones they were a size of a

[00:41:25] bread box i mean literally they're size of a military walkie talkie i mean they're big

[00:41:30] and you know we saw this is great as a portable phone i mean but now as you see what tends to

[00:41:34] happen is the technology evolves and the science that feeds that technology evolves

[00:41:38] and therefore the technology yields science the task here is to make things more efficient

[00:41:44] and along with that efficiency comes a scalability so now what we're able to see

[00:41:48] is that the current iterations of a cell phone are rather compact well this is a tendency

[00:41:53] that we can then apply it analogously to other forms of energetic technology again

[00:41:59] rangeable acoustics and ultrasonic devices and certainly microwaves were then acknowledging

[00:42:03] what the limitations are with regard to scalability and applications in use and delimiting them by

[00:42:09] the use of conjoined applications of convergent science and technology which countries are sort

[00:42:15] of doing research into this sort of technology and are there any pioneers in it well again i

[00:42:19] think to reiterate it's certainly we're certainly seeing representative and reflective

[00:42:24] of the ongoing work of what i'll call the big three so the united states and its international

[00:42:29] scientific technological and yes of course military allies as well as our trans-pacific

[00:42:37] peer competitor namely china and work that had been done in the former soviet union that

[00:42:44] then had carryover and has now been uptaken with specificity in russia here too we're

[00:42:50] seeing these are the big three if you will but the the consideration here is just because those

[00:42:56] are the countries that are doing the ongoing research development testing evaluation and

[00:43:01] perhaps limited applications of use occupationally industrially and perhaps even within within the

[00:43:07] military that doesn't mean that those are the sources of attribution and the reason for

[00:43:12] that is quite simple i mean large nations characteristically employ proxies for a variety

[00:43:18] of things the united states and its allies certainly have historically we see that and

[00:43:23] we know that our trans-pacific and trans-atlantic peer competitors also engage proxies both directly

[00:43:30] and implicitly as well the technology if made available either by virtue of plan or the actual

[00:43:37] widgets themselves the actual technology can be uptaken by proxies which could be non-state

[00:43:43] actors that could then leverage these technologies in those ways in very very asymmetrical

[00:43:48] engagements to have fairly profound effect disruptive effect so again i think what becomes

[00:43:54] important to note is that yes absolutely the proverbial big three that represent global

[00:43:59] powers have dedicated research development and application efforts in these spaces

[00:44:05] but that does not rule out the possibility for others act of other actors obtaining this

[00:44:10] science or technology using the science or technology and using it in a variety of ways

[00:44:16] that could be capricious or nefarious these incidents being out for some time and potentially

[00:44:21] up to 100 american personnel have genuinely been affected by these direct energy devices

[00:44:28] whether targeted or not but the u.s government seems to be sort of playing down the sort of

[00:44:33] significance of it in his messaging whilst you know obviously in comparison the 60 minutes report

[00:44:38] is quite sort of pointed in believing that it's the russian government are attacking top tier u.s

[00:44:44] personnel and i was wondering kind of what your your thoughts were on that let me back out of

[00:44:49] that question a bit so i think there's actually two questions there yeah number one has been

[00:44:58] i think a relative circumspection in certain areas of the united states governmental reports

[00:45:03] and also disclosures about what these ahi's could represent and the overall tenor of the

[00:45:09] havana syndrome and the second is this most recent implication or attribution in terms of

[00:45:15] finger pointing as to the who done it they they are in fact i think separate issues

[00:45:21] not unrelated but separate issues and let's treat them as such

[00:45:27] let us just assume for a moment without any sense of attribution that there's a recognition

[00:45:32] that number one these devices exist which in fact they do that is a reality that is a

[00:45:36] factual reality and number two they're operational usable and therefore have

[00:45:40] validity and value in operational settings such as those of the individuals who are exposed

[00:45:44] in havana and perhaps elsewhere again a factual reality there's a couple of caveats that go

[00:45:50] along with that if in fact the united states and or its international allies are employing

[00:45:56] these devices well then frank admission of that in a public forum would also allow frank

[00:46:03] admission to that among our peer competitors to recognize what the contemporary state of

[00:46:06] that science and technology is in these operational settings in other words you're

[00:46:10] cracking your playbook point number one point number two if in fact there is the suspicion

[00:46:17] and or implications and perhaps on some levels factors that would then lead to

[00:46:24] direct attribution factual attribution that it was a peer competitor well do you really

[00:46:29] want to let your peer competitor know that you know what they're doing and that you may

[00:46:34] then be developing particular mechanisms of detection and or mitigation and prevention

[00:46:38] because what you're essentially doing there is your telegraphing which would then allow your

[00:46:43] peer competitor to advance their technology in those ways that are going to counter your

[00:46:46] counters so there is a bit of the what i'll call cat and mouse that can occur on a number

[00:46:52] of levels and certainly those represent viable possibilities i think another more what i'll call

[00:46:58] reasonable possibility i mean not to discount the former and not to say these two are mutually

[00:47:03] exclusive is that i think before there's any real statement of presumptive risk and that

[00:47:11] presumptive risk is then expected as definitive exposure characteristically that process of

[00:47:17] validation takes time look i mean the fact that dr jim giordano produced a report

[00:47:25] that was methodologically sound and based upon rigorous criteria well that's one thing but i'm

[00:47:29] one person dealing with a particular set of cases and what you want to find is multiple

[00:47:35] collaborative lines of evidence to be able to support presumptive risk certainly the national

[00:47:41] academy's report notable in that regard but i think here too you can't you can't extricate

[00:47:48] one set of factors in other words the time effort level of information data and therefore

[00:47:53] validation resources necessary to come to presumptive risk of defined exposure from the

[00:48:00] fact that well okay exposure to what and by whom so the intricacy of that relationship

[00:48:09] yeah the devices exist yeah these individuals were very probably exposed to those devices

[00:48:16] coupled with the yeah but the who done it and why they done it

[00:48:21] creates i think a very tenuous set of circumstances that need to be prudently

[00:48:25] and pragmatically addressed which i feel in part may be reflective and representative of some

[00:48:30] of the circumspection in certain aspects of this as this was evolving over the period of

[00:48:35] time from 2016 to present i'm going to get us into our final section i saw you did a very

[00:48:41] interesting lecture i actually watched it this morning i can't say i understood the whole thing

[00:48:45] but you had this brilliant lecture called the brain is the battlefield of the future and i was

[00:48:49] wondering if you could just tell us why you consider the brain the battlefield of the future

[00:48:53] yeah i mean so the the assertion that the brain represents the 21st century

[00:48:58] battlescape is based upon what i feel are three convergent lines of of realistic and

[00:49:04] factual evidence number one the more we learn about any biological system the more we

[00:49:10] recognize both its capabilities and its vulnerabilities and certainly if we take

[00:49:14] a look at the latter part of the 20th century we can ideally look at that and say this has

[00:49:19] been sort of the the half century of the neurosciences i mean the neurosciences as a

[00:49:24] titular field arose in the late 70s and that that concatenation of ideas of of constructs

[00:49:32] of innovation realistically led to a bow wave of activity looking at the brain as if you will

[00:49:38] one of the final exploratory frontiers and so we're learning a lot more about brain

[00:49:42] structure and function and of course we're also developing a whole host of tools to be able to

[00:49:48] assess the brain to access the brain and to affect the brain and the specificity the precision

[00:49:54] the sophistication the granularity of those tools render them highly duly usable but moreover

[00:50:03] take a look at the organ that those tools are affecting and assessing that organ that brain

[00:50:10] as it is embodied in that individual who is embedded within whatever environments they're in

[00:50:16] is at very very least an important component of our thoughts our emotions our decisions

[00:50:24] our behaviors and our identities and so being able to affect that being able to assess that

[00:50:33] in ever-increasing and sophisticated ways that allow relatively remote effects

[00:50:39] that can then be incurred on some very subtle scales that can have rippling implications as

[00:50:45] relate to individual and group interactions cognitions feelings actions and activities

[00:50:53] well there's a lot of power there a tremendous amount of power and so what we're seeing is

[00:50:59] that the the toolkit of the brain sciences renders these tools exceedingly duly usable

[00:51:09] so here we're looking at things like certainly new drugs the development and identification of

[00:51:15] new bugs whether these bugs be viruses bacteria fungi they can be modifications of existing

[00:51:22] entities and or creation of those things anew as covid taught us the idea that we could perhaps

[00:51:31] manipulate certain organisms even in those ways that are necessary to explore how gain of

[00:51:36] function may allow these organisms to become more mutable more transmissible i'm not saying

[00:51:41] that covid was a biological weapon there is nothing to my evidence or the history that i

[00:51:46] have seen that indicates that it was but certainly there are strong indications to suggest

[00:51:52] that the gain of function research that was deemed to be necessary to explore the vulnerability

[00:51:57] of human populations to potential modifications and mutations of the sars-cov virus that were

[00:52:03] environmentally present in wuhan coupled with some inadequacy of the biosafety levels of

[00:52:10] the laboratory for early stages of modification of that allowed a modified virus to escape back

[00:52:17] into the wild and although the modified virus itself may have been very benign its escape back

[00:52:22] into the wild form under particular ecological conditions allowed for a trajectory of mutation

[00:52:27] and mutagenicity that then led to the zoonotic spread that we now know as covid

[00:52:32] but that could be intentionalized as well the use of gene editing the use of synthetic biology

[00:52:39] the use of developing an iterative and combinatorial toolkit to assess the brain

[00:52:44] from a distance for example and to also access the brain and affect the brain from a distance

[00:52:49] profound and what that then allows is a toolkit that enables if you will

[00:52:57] access to the functions of the brain which cumulatively and colloquially refer to as

[00:53:04] mind could that be a form of mind reading well literally reading taking signs and symbols

[00:53:12] and providing that interpretive meaning based upon some codified pattern yeah absolutely

[00:53:18] could we then also target the brain directly as i said through bugs and drugs through

[00:53:24] modified toxins through devices through data yeah we could do it directly and we can do

[00:53:29] it indirectly by changing the way the brain responds to what we now understand to be

[00:53:35] narratives symbols by understanding the way individual and collective brains process this

[00:53:40] information respond to this information when coupled to big data when coupled to machine

[00:53:46] learning to ai to ubiquitous forms of media that are available it can be then used to leverage

[00:53:52] various opinions and perspectives of individuals and populations the target ability of the brain

[00:53:59] both in terms of its neurological substrates and neurological structures and functions and

[00:54:03] those functions as we know of cognitions emotions and behaviors profound profound thank

[00:54:09] you for that as we wrap up is there anything else that you would like to add before we part

[00:54:12] company today that's important to you i think that i think we've covered a lot but i think

[00:54:17] perhaps a take home message here is not just to your listening audience but to up the chain

[00:54:23] of those levels of politics that help to protect the polis that is your listening

[00:54:28] audience i mean we need to take a very factual recognition of what science and technology

[00:54:33] is out there and although we'd like to think that the low-hanging fruit for the development

[00:54:37] and use of that science and technology is for benevolent aims and means you know what we whoever

[00:54:43] we are considered to be good may not be the same as what they whoever they are to consider

[00:54:47] to be good and let's face it every application of science and technology for a group's national

[00:54:54] security intelligence and defense is done under the idea of yes we're protecting what we hold

[00:54:59] to be good we're advancing what we hold to be good so understanding the science and technology

[00:55:05] and understanding the human condition and how we appropriate goods and how we use science and

[00:55:09] technology to defend and advance what we hold to be good i think certainly is going to necessitate

[00:55:15] a much more granular and at the same time expansive comprehensive address of the way that

[00:55:23] these emerging sciences and technologies can be and will be used in these various agenda

[00:55:31] where can listeners find out more about you and your work yeah certainly i mean they could

[00:55:36] go to the georgetown website that's www.georgetown.edu and just type in my faculty name there dr james

[00:55:44] giordano and you can get an ongoing view of my work and or they could contact me and view me

[00:55:49] from the ongoing work at the institute for bio defense research here in the united states and

[00:55:53] once again that's www.biodefenseresearch.org. Dr. Giordano thank you very much for your time

[00:56:00] today and for joining me on the podcast. Thank you so much for your interest in my work and

[00:56:03] thanks for listening.

[00:56:24] So

[00:56:32] thanks for listening this is secrets and spies.

[00:56:53] So