Ready?
Incoming rant, but serious đ.
https://t.co/dPsJILZkgP
It really and truly was high-intensity, aimed, microwave radiation that caused âHavana Syndromeâ (permanent brain damage) in US and Canadian diplomats while they were stationed in Cuba and China in recent years.
Because it *does not matter* what the official intention was. The facts are:
1. Advanced technology was aimed at official US & CA diplomats.
2. Those diplomats were legally permitted, and expected, to be in those known locations while stationed in Cuba and China.
...
3. The devices aimed at our diplomats in Cuba and China were then deliberately and intentionally fired high-energy microwave payloads into the bodies of US and Canadian government officials who were not violating any agreement or law by merely being at these places.
In order to even begin claiming justification here, the theoretical crimes would have to have been so heinous and obvious as to require skipping all of those foundational steps of legitimate proceedings...
The bottom line is that commentary trying to brush aside these assaults on our diplomats and which attempts to sweep the well documented harm of this new form of attack under the rug, provides aid and cover for the enemy.
This scenario w/new tech now tries to achieve same goal w/out the unwanted parts.
There is no way to justify this harm to diplomats.
It is an abhorrent & unacceptable use of technology.
The answer here to this one should be unambiguous: That we reject the use of invisible, covertly deployed, unannounced, and unexpected weapons to inflict brain damage in the a target. Full stop.
Implementing defense, detection, and countermeasures against this new type of attack must be done...
The report Iâve attached (linked in first tweet at top) helps in getting past that first hurdle....
More from Health
Let's talk honestly about "informed consent."
Someone with decades of training gives someone with none advice usually packed into 1-3 mins. Huge amount is based on trust. Huge potential for bias built in. But also there is no obligation to provide real alternative options.
I am classified as 'gifted' (obnoxious and ableist term). I mention because of what I am about to say. You all know that I was an ambulatory wheelchair user previously - could stand - but contractures have ended that. When I pleaded for physio, turned down. But did you know...
I recently was chatting with a doctor I know and explaining what happened and the day the physiatrist told me it was too late and nothing could be done. The doctor asked if I'd like one of her friends/colleagues to give second opinion. I said yes please! So...
She said can you send me MRI and other imaging they did to determine it wasn't possible to address your contractures.
Me: What?
Dr.: They did a MRI first before deciding right?
Me: No
Dr: What did they do??!
Me: Examined me for 2 minutes.
Dr: I am very angry rn. Can't talk.
My point is you don't even know if you are making "informed" decisions because the only source of information you have is the person who has already decided what they think you should do. And may I remind you of a word called 'compliance.'
Someone with decades of training gives someone with none advice usually packed into 1-3 mins. Huge amount is based on trust. Huge potential for bias built in. But also there is no obligation to provide real alternative options.
MAiD isn't eugenics. The task for the medical profession is to ensure informed consent. Failures on that front should result in enforcement of the law. But Bill C-7 is the result of the existing regime imposing unnecessary, unconstitutional harms by blocked access to MAiD.
— Emmett Macfarlane (@EmmMacfarlane) February 13, 2021
I am classified as 'gifted' (obnoxious and ableist term). I mention because of what I am about to say. You all know that I was an ambulatory wheelchair user previously - could stand - but contractures have ended that. When I pleaded for physio, turned down. But did you know...
I recently was chatting with a doctor I know and explaining what happened and the day the physiatrist told me it was too late and nothing could be done. The doctor asked if I'd like one of her friends/colleagues to give second opinion. I said yes please! So...
She said can you send me MRI and other imaging they did to determine it wasn't possible to address your contractures.
Me: What?
Dr.: They did a MRI first before deciding right?
Me: No
Dr: What did they do??!
Me: Examined me for 2 minutes.
Dr: I am very angry rn. Can't talk.
My point is you don't even know if you are making "informed" decisions because the only source of information you have is the person who has already decided what they think you should do. And may I remind you of a word called 'compliance.'