– More TIs finding out about the petition.
– Increasing internet interest in the plight of targeted individuals – last time I typed in “Targeted Individuals” into a search engine, it produced over 82 million references.
– A significant increase in the number of TIs.
TI NUMBERS ARE INCREASING: NO ONE GETS OUT ALIVE, BUT THEY STILL SURVIVE
Some TIs wrote in their survey responses that they had been targeted for over ten or even twenty years. From this it appears unlikely that TIs are ever released from remote electronic torture. According to Marshall Thomas, TIs continue to live on, despite what perpetraitors do to them. He states that TI mortality rates are ‘surprisingly low’. In a compilation of evidence for the Presidents Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments March 1995, Marshall Thomas stated:
‘One thing is very clear about the program these people are under…once it starts it never stops until they are dead. Having said this, it should be noted that the mortality factor for TI’s is surprisingly low considering the ferocity of the torture program that they are under. Though it is difficult to be exact, only about one out of 20 or one out of 40 TI’s appear to die each year.*’
*Extracts from ‘Monarch-the-New-Phoenix-Program-II’, Page 34 onwards. www.scribd.com/doc/15360318/Monarch-the-New-Phoenix-Program-II
Also, nonconsensual research on TIs is a profitable criminal business, so it is in the interest of the perpetraitors to keep them alive.
HAVE PERPETRAITORS RECENTLY HAD A MAJOR CAPACITY INCREASE ?
Why could there be a sudden increase in the number of TIs? If the criminals running the TI “business” operate the kind of technology used by large corporations that interact with the public – such as call centres, and back up of records in a data centre – there must be a limit to the capacity of the business to take on new TIs. So if suddenly more individuals are being targeted, it could be that perpetraitors recently had a major expansion of capacity. The increase in TI numbers from 2011 would suggest a capacity increase of at least 100%.
What is the implication of a capacity increase for Targeted Individuals? From what I have seen in my interaction with perpetraitors, they now have a lot of upgraded spare capacity. It looks as if far more Targeted Individuals than ever before are planned to be targeted.
ARE TARGETED INDIVIDUALS BEING ‘FARMED’ AS A NONCONSENSUAL CASH CROP?
I suspect that for the perpetraitors, expansion of capacity means larger profits. The more Targeted Individuals they have in their net, the more money they can get. The possible implications of this are that:
– TIs are becoming a kind of ‘cash crop’ that can be farmed, with increasing reliance on automation and modern facilities. The primary source of income is through offering TIs as subjects for nonconsensual research.
– But there are other lucrative markets as well. According to Marshall Thomas, the illicit surveillance of TIs provides for a kind of reality TV which is sold to viewers within the criminal fraternity. See inset below:
‘The TI is both a very expensive lab rat for the health effects of microwave weapons, a training tool for a stalking army, a psychology experiment to perfect mind control, fodder for publishing scientific papers, and a commodity to be sold for entertainment purposes a la reality TV.
The incredible expense of gang stalking several thousand people on an enemies list is offset by selling the TI as a human guinea pig for weapons development programs, medical experiments, psychology experiments (GSA contracts), and a “reality TV show” that might be sold on the internet, satellite TV, or satellite radio.
The audience is made up of several tiers of viewers and participants. The perspective of the drama that unfolds before the satellite TV and internet audience is the action as seen through the eyes of the TI with the targets “inner voice” typed out on the screen below.’ Extract from Page 33 of:
SOME TARGETED INDIVIDUALS REPORT BEING USED FOR WEAPONS RESEARCH
From 28 February to 1 March 2011, the Presidential Commission on Bioethics discussed non-consensual experiments on human beings. During this discussion, Targeted Individuals talked about their experience, and what their life was like because of the experimentation done on them. A few of the Targeted Individuals’ observations on human experimentation are included below:
Observations by Targeted Individuals
1. ‘Gang stalking and harassment was used to implement this nonconsensual biotechnology application that is being used on me… I now experience involuntary limb movements. I receive stingings. I get pains to my head, to my abdomen… I get burning on my lower legs and my ankles. I get ringing in my ears that’s pitch is like they pitch it.’
2. ‘Since 2008 and before, I have endured the following physical and psychological symptoms: extreme debilitating and chronic fatigue, weakness and dizziness for days and weeks at a time… I have an unusual dental filling of unknown origin on the side of one of my back upper right teeth and no memory of having this procedure done… And I have X-ray printouts and a signed affidavit from my dentist stating this.’
3. ‘I wanted to speak about bio-technology applications being utilized on my person. I have medical reports showing eye damage being done to my eyes, my eyes does not have a mirror image, I also have nano wiring inside my eyes, I have pictures of the actual implants from the eye doctor, once enlarging the nano implants, you will see a copy of the actual particles in my eyes. I have CAT scans in my eyes and PETs showing wiring, nano wiring in my head.’
4. ‘I am requesting that the Presidential Commission conduct an investigative hearing on non-consensual human experimentation and I do have credible evidence I’m submitting, 1158 videos and pictures that’s been occurring for the last two years. I’m also presenting 10 attachments which includes my 14-page public comment…’
Testimony extracts 1-4 taken from: www.bioethics.gov/cms/sites/default/files/Meeting%205%20%20Session%206.pdf
5.‘For decades I have suffered the following due to these remote weapons and research…To date I have: Non age related cataracts, nodule on thyroid, nodule on adrenal gland and sudden hearing loss syndrome. These are all resulting from being subject to electromagnetic weapons. Endless MRI’s, X-rays, test after test, specialist after specialist. Thousands of dollars in debt and the doctors cannot find a reason. I have witnesses.’ www.targetedindividuals.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/
WHO STANDS TO GAIN FROM RESEARCH ON TARGETED INDIVIDUALS?
If one of the main reasons for targeting individuals is to conduct research testing of electromagnetic microwave, laser and psychotronic weapons on various populations, presumably there are groups of people who have commissioned such research, and people who have provided funding – sometimes referred to as donors.
The groups with most interest in the outcome of this research would include the manufacturers and suppliers of these weapons. Is it likely that such groups are going to be concerned about testing weapons on human subjects? They will, presumably, need evidence of exactly how their weapons affect human populations if they are to sell their products. But they can hardly be seen to commission nonconsensual research. So perpetraitors can profit by exploiting their slave population of targeted individuals as research guinea pigs.
WHY SUCH RESEARCH IS NEVER VALID
One thing that perpetraitors and electronic weapons salesmen seem to have overlooked – you can’t pull the wool over the eyes of the international community when it comes to proper registration and conduct of weapons research, even if it is not ‘non-lethal’ i.e. not for battlefield use. There are rigorous standards for all types of research, and evidence of compliance with them will be expected.
NON CONSENSUAL HUMAN RESEARCH V INFORMED CONSENT
Non-consensual human experimentation is outlawed in all humane societies. The targeted individuals who had the courage to give their testimonies to the Presidential Commission on Bioethics had clearly not given their consent to being used as research subjects. The US Office for Human Research Protections has set out guidance about the basics of obtaining informed consent:- Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) §46.116 – Informed Consent Checklist – Basic and Additional Elements. These require that human subjects are clearly informed, amongst other things, about:
– the purpose of the research
– what the research will cover
– how long the research will last
– what tests they will be involved in
– who do contact with questions
– personal confidentiality of records
– what the risks to health are, and
– what will happen if the subject wishes to withdraw before the end of the research project.
WHAT PERPETRAITORS WOULD HAVE TO DO TO MEET BASIC HUMAN RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS
Any research testing on humans must comply with fairly stringent standards if the results are to be recognised as valid within the international community. Human research subjects should not have been experimented on for the same thing before, otherwise their health and mental outlook might have been affected by previous research, and conclusions about current research results could be based on invalid data, and therefore flawed. This would mean that Targeted Individuals must not automatically be transferred from one research project to a subsequent one, although criminals might well do so for financial considerations.
Here are a few of requirements that perpetrators would need to have checked before selecting individuals for targeting:
– Complete health history of research subject and close family and known health risks.
– All medical drugs, vitamins and other remedies taken by the human subject.
– Any substance abuse including alcohol and nicotine.
– Any previous mental health issues.
– Any actions taken subsequently by human subjects to counteract torture and victimisation,
including shielding against microwaves, diet to counter cancer, maintaining a healthy ph level,
– Any medical prostheses such as pacemakers and automatic insulin dispensers, that might be at
risk of failure because of electronic interventions.
– Previous work in a nuclear power station, which might have exposed a subject to nuclear
– Previous work in an industry involving nuclear radiation products.
– Previous work involving toxic chemicals.
– Previous work in a cell phone factory.
– Previous involvement as a human research subject in similar research projects.
In commercial research for medical drugs, the clinical records and the full testing records for each human subject must be available for scrutiny by the relevant independent standards checking authorities. The perpetraitors would have to maintain similar research records and make them available to independent scrutiny, if their ‘research projects’ were to be recognised by the international community.
DOES THIS SOUND LIKE RESEARCH TO YOU?
We have heard what some targeted Individuals reported to the Presidential Commission on Bioethics about their experiences. Does this sound like research to you? Is it likely that a bunch of criminals went about drawing on TIs’ official health records and establishing their suitability before selecting them for targeting? And are the so-called ‘research case papers’ going to be examined by an independent research body to ensure records can be relied on? If not, then whatever research results the criminal perpetraitors eventually come up with must be open to question, making the whole research project unviable.
Anyone having doubts about this? Read the provisions of the Belmont Report – ‘Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research’, summarised at the end of this post.
If you look at what Targeted Individuals have to say about their experiences, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that whatever is happening to them cannot be classified as research. It is also clearly nonconsensual, and therefore against the law.
Based on what appears to be the significant increase in the numbers of Targeted Individuals, major investment is being made in this criminal activity, perhaps for decades to come. If that is being done in the mistaken view that results from targeting individuals can be used to prove that some kind of research has been conducted, then billions of dollars have already been wasted for no justifiable reason, and thousands of innocent human beings have been subject to appalling misery and torture.
SHIP OF FOOLS
THE BELMONT REPORT
In 1979, the Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, was published in the United States to provide a succinct description of the mandate for review of research involving human research participants. Regulation and guidelines concerning the use of human research participants in the U.S., and increasingly so in other countries, are based on the following fundamental elements excerpted from the Belmont Report:
Respect for Persons – In research, respect for persons demands that participants enter into a research program voluntarily and with good information about the research goals.
Beneficence – to do no harm and to “maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms” to the individual research participant. Investigators – or in this case perpetraitors – and their institutions have to plan to maximize benefits and minimize risks.
Informed consent – the informed consent process must allow human participants, as much as they are able, to be given opportunity to choose what will or will not happen to them. The consent process must include information to the participant about the research; the participant must understand the information and volunteer rather then be coerced into participation.
Assessment of Risks and Benefits – Assessing risks and benefits means the researcher needs to assemble all data that explains why the research will obtain the benefits that are sought by the research project. The review committee of the researcher’s sponsoring institution, upon review of the collected data, can decide whether the risks to the subjects are justified. Prospective participant can determine whether or not to participate.
Selection of Participants – The principle of justice—that benefits and risks of research be distributed fairly. Researchers are not just if they only select disadvantages persons for risky research or only provide beneficial research to groups they favor. Special classes of injustice arise when participants are drawn from vulnerable populations, like those institutionalized or incarcerated in prisons, racial minorities, economically disadvantaged or the very sick. www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html
Sources of images for this post:
Slavery Frieze – Detail from ‘Slavery’ frieze www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/03/16/passage_of_time_feature.shtml
Reeve and Serfs – www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reeve_and_Serfs.jpg
While drafting this post, unauthorised alterations were made to it, prior to publication. There are those who do not want information to be made available publicly even though it is already in the public domain. They know that they have committed crimes against humanity, and they fear that the consequences of their actions will confront them.