Viral Environmental Warfare: Technology Bill of Rights Critically Needed

The ongoing “hidden in plain sight” geoengineering operations including the pervasive, near global spraying of ultrafine particles into the troposphere pose an existential risk to the biosphere and humanity. Likewise, bioengineering and genetic manipulation of potential pandemic pathogens with associated accidental or deliberate release represents a dire risk to the modern world. Compelling evidence to date indicates that the chimeric structure and added furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 was the result of human manipulation in the laboratory. Coronavirus and vaccine patents indicate a foreknowledge of the COVID-19 pandemic, which conveniently serves the interests of the global elites. The new COVID-19 vaccines, hailed as the answer to the pandemic, have potential toxicity, fail to prevent transmission, drive the development of new variants, and over time may predispose recipients to antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection. Other important technological threats include Internet-based censorship, nano-particulate pollution, electro-pollution and the massive amounts of electromagnetic energy inflicted on humans and Earth’s natural environment. A Technology Bill of Rights is critically needed to protect humanity and salvage what remains of Earth’s life support systems. In 1968, geophysicist Gordon J. F. MacDonald described the future possibility of purposefully triggering instabilities in such large-scale natural systems as the weather, the climate, and the oceans, including such phenomena as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis for use as weapons of warfare against enemy nations [1]. Much of what MacDonald envisioned has come to pass through a half century of technological development [2]. But he failed to realize that national militaries could and would be co-opted by a diabolically clever, Trojan horse, document that secretly encouraged sovereign nations to wage environmental warfare on their own citizens, nations, and planet Earth, including all its biota and natural, biogeochemical processes [3-5]. Many consider genetically engineered organisms as the most dangerous of all existing weapons technologies, with the potential for devastating effects on the environment and the human population [6]. Government sponsored scientific research into development of technologically sophisticated applications of biological weapons for use against humans, livestock, and animals began in the early part of the 20th Century. Biological weapons were deployed in both World War I and World War II. During the 1980’s and 1990’s Soviet scientists used genetic engineering

Prior to SARS-CoV-1 in 2002, coronaviruses were considered viruses of low public health importance, as they were mainly responsible for mild seasonal disease, such as the common cold. Over the past two decades, studies mainly in the United States and China have been designed to test and elucidate the mechanisms of potential zoonotic transfer of bat coronaviruses to man. Recombinant or "chimeric" viruses made from related bat viruses have been genetically engineered to target human cells [13,14]. These types of experiments showed that infection of human cells was limited because the activation of the spike protein (which allows viral entry into the cell) requires specific proteolysis, which can be circumvented by artificially adding a furin proteolysis site downstream of the receptor binding domain (RBD) at the spike processing site. These laboratory studies certainly fit the definition of so-called gainof-function (GOF) experiments in which potential pandemic pathogens are genetically manipulated to increase transmissibility or virulence in order to understand mechanisms of emergence and pathogenicity and/or to develop new vaccines or treatments. The remarkable advances in synthetic biology and reverse genetics over the past 20 years has greatly increased the risk of these gain-of function experiments [15]. Using reverse genetics, it is now possible to engineer and clone a virus nearly identical to SARS-CoV-2 within just a few days [16]. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ)

Services for Science and Education -United Kingdom
The debate over gain-of-function (GOF) experiments started with the controversial work of Fouchier and Kawaoka on avian influenza (H5N1) in 2011-2012. Published articles described testing the effect of mutations of influenza that would increase aerosol transmission of the virus in mammals including ferrets [17,18]. The risk of accidental escape of new potentially pandemic pathogens is exacerbated by the proliferation of high biosafety laboratories (BSL-3 and BSL-4) across the globe [19]. So-called potential pathogenic pathogen GOF experimentation poses a significant risk to public health, arguably the greatest risk of any biomedical research.
Alternative approaches to gain-of-function experiments can be safer and more effective for surveillance and developing new therapies and vaccines, the purported purposes of GOF research [20]. Due to the risks involved, the U.S. government imposed a moratorium on federal funding of research on viruses like SARS, influenza, and MERS from 2014-2017. However, certain ongoing studies with hybrid bat coronaviruses were permitted to continue [21]. One of these studies, "SARS-like WIVI-CoV poised for human emergence," was published in 2016. The study's senior author was Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina (UNC) with bat CoV sequences and spike protein provided by Zhengli Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This research was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [22].
Zhengli Shi, a.k.a. "The Bat Lady", and her team from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) had spent years sampling bats in South China looking for the origin of SARS. Shi's team found many bat viruses related to SARS, including a few of the closest, e.g., WIV1, SHC014, and RaTG13. This project was part of a global surveillance effort led by the U.S. nonprofit organization Eco Health Alliance and its president, Peter Daszak. Eco Health Alliance funded basic research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was involved in constructing novel chimeric viruses to assess their ability to infect human cells or human ACE-2 expressing mice [23,24].
As early as 2008, Shi published a key article on this subject, "Difference in receptor usage between severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus and SARS-like coronavirus of bat origin." She reported that only an engineered (i.e., chimeric) virus, and not the original bat virus, had the ability to enter cells via human ACE-2 [25]. Shi later teamed up with Ralph Baric at UNC as a joint effort to "examine the emergence potential of circulating bat coronaviruses." Baric was an expert in reverse genetics among coronaviruses and his group had the ability to mix and match parts of different viruses. This research supported his long-term project of developing drugs and vaccines against the spectrum of SARS-like viruses considered to be potential sources of pandemics. Despite the U.S. ban on GOF research from 2014 until 2017, the NIH awarded a five-year, $3.75 million-dollar grant to Eco Health Alliance to study the risk that more bat-borne coronaviruses would emerge, using the same techniques Baric had pioneered. Some of this work was subcontracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This means if SARS-CoV-2 did escape from the Wuhan labs, the U.S. NIH would be responsible for funding this disastrous experiment leading to the death of millions [26].
Chimeric viruses can arise by natural recombination or by human manipulation. SARS-CoV-2 has a furin-like cleavage site in its spike protein which greatly enhances the infectivity and cell tropism of the virus. This feature enables it to cross species and tissue barriers, but it has not been found in other beta-coronaviruses of the same clade.
SARS-CoV-2 is unique among other beta-coronaviruses not only in its furin site at the spike 1-2 junction, but also in the four amino acid codons that code for this site. These findings of extreme low probability suggest that the furin site was inserted into the virus genome in a controlled manner [27,28]. Furthermore, genomic evidence suggests that the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 was genetically altered, and it strongly resembles that of the original SARS-CoV-1 of the 2003 epidemic. The RBD within the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 determines the host specificity of the virus. Dating back to 2008, Baric and others showed that infectious recombinant viruses could be created in the lab by replacing a bat coronavirus spike receptor binding domain with the SARS-CoV RBD [29].
These studies indicate that both cleavage site and specific RBD could result from so-called site directed mutagenesis, a procedure that may not leave a trace. Synthetically generating potential pre-emergent coronaviruses was a declared goal of federal grants funneled through the Eco Health Alliance, which funded such research at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan in collaboration with laboratories in the U.S. and elsewhere [30].
The bulk of scientific evidence to date indicates that the chimeric structure and furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 was the result of human manipulation. While the laboratory origin of the virus has gained traction world-wide, the natural origin of COVID-19 has not acquired similar supporting evidence. Both SARS and MERS left clues as to an environmental source and the intermediate hosts for both were identified within a few months. The existence of bat coronaviruses closest to SARS-CoV-2 (e.g., RaTG13, MP789, and RmYNO2) came to light only after the start of the pandemic and their genomes do not match those of COVID-19 [31].
The most influential scientific article claiming the proximal (natural) origin of SARS-CoV-2 relied on these closely related bat coronaviruses for its analysis, and even this study did not exclude laboratory origin [32]. A recent genetic analysis showed that SARS-CoV-2 did not spillover from pangolins [33]. Public and media perception favoring the natural origin of COVID-19 have been shaped by individuals who themselves were involved in risky GOF research on potential pandemic pathogens. A group of scientists and virologists led by Peter Daszak published a letter in Lancet in March of 2020 stating, "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." The authors claimed falsely that scientists throughout the world had already proven that the pandemic virus had originated in wildlife [34]. Zhengli Shi wrote a scientific article that, while admitting the origin of the virus was still unresolved, concluded that its most likely introduction was from an intermediary host species, or even through cold-chain food transmission [35]. It should be noted that supporters of the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, including Peter Daszak and Kristian Anderson, were recipients of large grants awarded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) in August of 2020 [36].
Considering the COVID-19 pandemic began in Wuhan, China, close to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, it is quite logical to assume a chimeric, human-adapted coronavirus was accidently released. During the first outbreak of SARS in 2004, two accidental releases from a Beijing laboratory were reported [37]. However, this does not preclude the possibility of the deliberate release of SARS-CoV-2 into China or elsewhere. Multiple countries have or have had bioweapons programs, including the U.S., Canada, Russia, United Kingdom, Japan, and China. Biological weapons allow users to create fear and panic among victims yet escape undetected.
Biowarfare attacks not only cause sickness and death, but they disrupt economic activity, cause breakdown of government authority, and cripple military defense [38].
Dr. Li-Meng Yan provides evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or back bone [39]. ZC45 and ZXC21 are bat coronaviruses discovered between 2015 and 2017 by military research laboratories in Chongqing and Nanjing, China. These data were published in 2018 [40]. Dr. Francis Boyle, who drafted the first Biologic Weapons Act of 1989, has said publicly that it is his belief that COVID-19 was developed as a bioweapon. The Biological Weapons Convention does allow for stockpiling of biological agents and toxins for "prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes " [41]. There is eerily similar language to that in the ENMOD treaty [42] that allowing "peaceful environmental improvement," used to justify highly destructive environmental warfare operations under the guise of "peaceful" [3]. On February 24, 2020, a patent for a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was filed by principal investigator Yusen Zhou, PLA (People's Liberation Army) scientist who worked on it at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Zhou died 3 months later in "undisclosed circumstances" [46]. Yusen is listed on U.S. Patent No. 9,889,194B2 granted in 2018 for a MERS vaccine. A candidate COVID vaccine, Biovacc-19, is based on the chimeric (i.e., man-made) structure of SARS-Co-V as an alternative to the likely ineffective or even harmful currently available COVID vaccines [47].
Given the laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2 (or COVID-19), its future course cannot be predicted with accuracy. The official narrative regarding COVID-19 pushed by the "official authorities," and parroted by mainstream media is not only deeply flawed but constantly changing. Dissenting views, even regarding effective treatments, are suppressed or censored. Only through independent investigation can one get closer to the truth concerning future directions of the pandemic.
Here are some of the things we know: • COVID-19 is here to stay.
• COVID-19 affects nearly all continents and countries, producing ongoing waves of disease with the highest morbidity and mortality in older persons with underlying disease. • Mutations affecting mainly the spike protein of the virus are common and lead to the emergence of new variants.
Recent scientific research reveals: • Natural infection with COVID-19 usually provides robust and long-lasting immunity [48]. • COVID vaccines may protect against severe illness for undefined periods of time, but they do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus [49,50]. • SARS-CoV-2 spike protein circulates shortly after vaccination, and it is presumably responsible for reported adverse events and even death after vaccination [51,52]. • Attempts to develop vaccines to the original SARS virus failed due to antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) [53,54]. • ADE becomes more likely with waning antibodies over time. Facilitating, or enhancing antibodies have an increased affinity for the dominant COVID Delta variant [55]. • There is now sustained transmission of COVID-19 in highly vaccinated countries like Israel and the United Kingdom, with a growing percentage of recent cases in fully vaccinated individuals [54]. • It is very likely that the current platform of COVID vaccines is driving the development of variants with new mutations of the spike protein.
The COVID-19 pandemic must be viewed in the wider context of the existential, anthropogenic threats to the biosphere. Whether or not SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally or deliberately released, the pandemic serves the interests of global elites and their "problem, reaction, solution" (Hegelian Dialect) mode of operation.
Top-down control by lockdowns, mandates, depersonalization, monitoring, passports, and restrictions on personal freedoms are being imposed by increasingly authoritarian governments. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are under attack. Entities like the Club of Rome and the World Economic Forum (WEF) support world government with a corporate structure administered through the United Nations.
The United Nations is set to the use the climate crisis (blamed on fossil fuels and CO2) to usher in the New World Order in the mold of Agenda 21-2030 and the Great Reset. Key components of the World Economic Forum's "Fourth Industrial Revolution" include digital transformation, artificial intelligence, Earth's bio-genome project, geoengineering, and depopulation [56,57]. Genetically modified plants, animals, and microbes are complimentary to geoengineering in the same way that bio-warfare is related to geo-warfare. The current "leaky" COVID vaccines will enhance the transmission of more virulent strains of the virus [58]. New variants of COVID will increasingly threaten the global population regardless of their vaccination status. Toxic fall-out from the constant aerial spraying will further weaken immunity and possibly will be used to introduce new pathogens. Potential pandemic pathogens already under genetic manipulation, like MERS coronavirus and Marburg, could be released at any time [59,60]. The insanity of geoengineering and bioengineering must come to an end if our civilization and the natural environment are to have any chance of survival.
Beneath the thin veneer of humanity, lurks an evil, bestial drive to subjugate, enslave and destroy. The Third Reich of Adolph Hitler and the U.S.S.R. of Joseph Stalin should have alerted people to the ever-present danger to their lives and liberties posed by the dark and cruel underside of human nature, but few noticed.
Science and technology, instead of enlightening and improving human existence, are being employed to destroy life on Earth and to diminish the rights and freedoms we hold dear. In our time, as during Hitler's Third Reich [61], many too many scientists and physicians are complicit, overtly or by their silence and compliance. The problem is that science and technology have gotten out of control, and have provided the means for global dominance and environmental warfare against the citizens of sovereign nations. In the following, we propose new ideas for protective governance against scientific and technological travesties. Although we cast these ideas in the framework of United States laws, the concepts can and should be adapted for the protection of all sovereign nations.
Human nature has not changed since the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788 and the Bill of Rights in 1791. But science and technology have rapidly progressed to the point of being able to cause great human and environmental harm, even to the point of potentially making Earth uninhabitable for life as we know it. Legal progress has lagged behind science and technology, and currently does not provide a substantial basis to protect Americans from the consequences of technology-based assault on human and environmental health and on the free exchange of truthful information necessary to preserve a democratic republic.
From time to time groups have litigated based upon the Public Trust Doctrine that has evolved from Roman law, "by the law of nature these things are common to mankind-the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea" [62]. But the problems in such cases typically involve questionable locus standi [63], improperly deal with a "political issue", may be resolvable by Congress or the President, and/or, although not always appreciated, are based on the false doctrine of scientific consensus [64]. The evidence and implications described below serve to demonstrate that the present system of jurisprudence is inadequate to protect Americans from the consequences of science-based actions concomitant with the rapid and potentially global-threatening progress of science and technology. A more fundamental legal basis is needed [65].
Two hundred twenty nine years ago only the institutions of government were sufficiently powerful to pose truly grave threats to the rights and freedom of American citizens. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution obviated that threat by guaranteeing the rights of individuals and placing limitations on state and federal governments. The Founding Fathers, however, never envisioned that even greater threats would subsequently emerge from scientific and technological progress.
Science, and the technological developments springing therefrom, can improve the quality of life on Earth. But, as circumstances presently exist, without fundamental legal safeguards, our individual freedoms, the air we breathe, the water we drink, and our ability to nourish ourselves and protect our health and the health of our families are now under great threat by deliberate, malevolent technology-based activities by "bad actors." The entire web of life on Earth is threatened by disruption of the delicate balance by and between myriad biota and their environments [66,67].
For the protection of humanity and the planetary environment in general, and American citizens in particular, what is needed, we posit, is a set of new Constitutional Amendments that collectively form a second Bill of Rights, a Technology Bill of Rights, to protect our freedoms, health, air, water, agriculture, and the planetary environment from deliberate perversion and alteration. As fundamental as the original Bill of Rights, the proposed second, Technology Bill of Rights would guarantee the rights of individuals against technologically-based threats, and would place limitations on the application of threat-posing technologies.
Although intended for Americans, the considerations presented are global in nature and appropriately should serve as a model for other sovereign nations to adopt.
Threats to the environment as a consequence of advances in technology are frequently caused or exacerbated by human foibles, ranging from ignorance and self-interest to malice and deceit, invariably motivated by financial gain and/or political control. In principle individuals, especially the extremely wealthy and/or those in control of powerful technologies, could cause great harm to human and environmental health and/or pervert the mechanisms that are the basis of American democracy. Historically, however, devastating environmental harm results from businesses acting alone or with government and/or military entities.
Environmental harm, undertaken solely by business interests, includes familiar activities such as producing and dispersing toxic herbicides and pesticides, accidental or purposeful release of toxic chemicals and radioactive substances into the environment, conducting gain-of-function experiments with potential pandemic pathogens, and introducing nano-particulates and genetically altered organisms into the environment.
Potentially greater environmental devastation is caused by national and international governments and/or military entities acting alone and/or together with contracted business entities. The greater potential harm is the consequence of scale, secrecy, and the perception that government/military activities -whatever they may be -are unaccountable to the public. That perception is a strong argument in favor of our posited Technology Bill of Rights. In the following we describe some of the current and potential threats to the environment and to our freedoms which illustrate the immediate need for a Technology Bill of Rights.
Life on Earth is possible due to the nature of Earth's composition and physical processes that afford protection from solar radiation, and because of myriad complex interactions by and between biota and their various environments. Any large-scale alteration of Earth's natural environment inevitably will have adverse consequences for life on this planet. One example of this are the global campaigns to eradicate insect vectors of contagions that began in the 1920s, initially through environmental application of Paris Green (the double salt of copper and arsenic) and DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) after 1939 [68][69][70]. Although implemented with good intensions, their consequences were tragic.
In 1962, Rachel Carson, in her book Silent Spring [71], warned that DDT and other pesticides not only killed insects, but progressed up the food chain killing numerous other species. Her revelations of the harmful consequences of DDT and other chemical pesticides helped to spawn a modern environmental movement [72]. But over time, whether through fear of losing donations or their tax-exempt status, or for other reasons, the environmental movement she birthed grew to turn a blind eye to current environmental trespass that is more devastating than DDT.
Laudable intent, including for peaceful purposes, is never sufficient to justify harming the environment. The environmental harm initially caused by widespread application of pesticides, presumably undertaken for laudable reasons, arguably, might be attributed to ignorance of the adverse consequences. The same cannot be said of the military's assault on human and environmental health.
Under aegis of "national defense" the U. S. military has been quick to adopt and test on unknowing American citizens the latest technology for use in warfare. Historical evidence from the 1940s-1970s clearly shows the military's blatant disregard for the environment, the health of U.S. citizens, and its willingness to compromise the integrity of public health institutions.
Characteristic of the military's desire to maintain a competitive advantage for reasons of "national security," subsequent nuclear technological development was undertaken quickly and thoroughly without regard for human and environmental health [73][74][75][76]. Not only was public knowledge of the potential health risks of aboveground nuclear explosions minimized by both the military and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission [77], but deliberate exposure of humans to radioactivity within the United States was undertaken without public acknowledgement and without informed consent for perceived military "national security" reasons [76,78]. Examples include, but are not limited to, injecting patients with plutonium or radioactive polonium [74], telling pregnant women they were receiving vitamins when instead they were being given radioactive iron [76], injecting newborn infants with radioactive iodine-131 [73], surreptitiously feeding human subjects radioactive waste [76], and injecting radioactive uranium salts into patients with good kidney function to determine the concentration which would produce renal injury [76].
The United States Government, as one of the State Parties of a specific United Nations Convention [42], must not only allow, but must contribute to environmental modification for "peaceful purposes" [3,5] where [42] "the term 'environmental modification techniques' refers to any technique for changing -through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes -the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space." The existence of the United States as a State Party to said United Nations Convention [42] stands as prima facie evidence for the need of a Technology Bill of Rights. The all-encompassing definition of environmental modification includes not only modifying the physical environment of Earth and space, but as well 'biota', modifying biological life-forms, including human beings.
As we have shown through precise legal analysis [5], said United Nations International Treaty [42], "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques," is a Trojan horse. It not only does not prohibit the use of environmental modification techniques, but said Convention "shall not hinder use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes" and indeed mandates participation in unspecified environmental modification activities, by unspecified entities "for peaceful purposes." Environmental modification is gravely detrimental to the environment; it is not and cannot be deemed peaceful. The terminology [42] "for peaceful purposes" is a sham, a fictional, deceptive intent and/or justification for a severely harmful activity. Recall the old proverb [79]: The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions.  [80] developed leukemia, lymphoma, or myeloma at eight times the rate of children who lived further away [82].
Although powerful, the Vatican's transmitters operated at much lower, safer, frequencies than most current wireless communications which produce electromagnetic radiation in the range 0.1-6 GHz [83]. Many people are concerned about the potential adverse health consequences of frequent exposure to electromagnetic radiation in this range of frequencies [84][85][86].
Telecommunications-connected individuals downplay or deny the existence of adverse health risks [87,88]. But there are indeed health risks [89][90][91][92]. For example, Pall [91] reviewed numerous literature citations of adverse health risks of electromagnetic radiation in this frequency range that include causing oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Services for Science and Education -United Kingdom neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload.
A new global "Fifth Generation" or 5G telecommunications system is presently being put into operation at lightning speed. The spectral range 6-100 GHz is currently under consideration [93], although in the future that range might be extended up to 300 GHz [94].The rapid roll-out and implementation of 5G is taking place despite the fact that there are virtually no systematic medical and biological studies on the adverse health effects of long-term pervasive exposure to electromagnetic radiation in this frequency range. The sporadic results so far reported [95][96][97][98] should be taken as a warning that humanity is being placed at risk by a technological onslaught undertaken without concern for human and environmental health. In addition to risks from electromagnetic radiation, the tens of thousands of rocket launches of 5G-satellites inevitably will damage Earth's ozone layer that protects surface life from the sun's ultraviolet radiation.
But there are even more worrisome concerns than human health. As precisely stated [99]: The aim of 5G systems is to provide anywhere and anytime connectivity for anyone and anything. The dark side of the 5G potential is that it allows tracking, monitoring, and control of all humans everywhere.
All totalitarian regimes in modern times employed secret police with the latest technology to track, monitor and control their citizens with disastrous consequences and much human suffering [100][101][102]. Seemingly respectable individuals readily make technology available for those ends. For example, IBM president, Thomas J. Watson, willingly made available to Nazi Germany state-of-the-art punch-card equipment used to organize, systematize, and accelerate Hitler's anti-Jewish program [103,104]. Currently, Microsoft founder, Bill Gates is instrumental in funding activities aimed at creating the technology to implant in each human a unique digital identifier that can be remotely read [105].
Given that great human and environmental harm is currently being allowed to take place with great secrecy and disinformation, presumably under aegis of said Trojan horse treaty [42], there is no reason to expect that 5G will be used beneficently. Quite the contrary. At some point it may even be possible to control humans' brain activities, moods, emotions, and/or behaviors with electromagnetic radiation.
There is an even more devastating electromagnetic assault on the portion of the atmosphere, 60 -1,000 km altitude, called the ionosphere. The gases of the ionosphere are ionized by charged particles from the sun and outer space. That assault involves heating and ionizing ionospheric matter with powerful focused beams of electromagnetic radiation. The affected matter then spirals around geomagnetic lines of force to be further guided with additional electromagnetic radiation. This directed energy can be used as a weapon or to serve other purposes, such as redirect jet streams which disrupt stable weather patterns that make possible agriculture, create and or move hurricanes, trigger earthquakes, disrupt global communications, destroy the ozone layer, and reveal subsurface structures [2,[106][107][108][109][110][111].
It is also conceivable that pumping electromagnetic radiation into the ionosphere might lead to the collapse of Earth's magnetic field [112]. Some of the potential consequences of a geomagnetic collapse and/or reversal on our global technologically-based infrastructure, include the following: Widespread communications disruptions, GPS blackouts, satellite failures, loss of electrical power, loss of electric-transmission control, electrical equipment damage, fires, electrocution, environmental degradation, refrigeration disruptions, food shortages, starvation and concomitant anarchy, potable water shortages, financial systems shut-down, fuel delivery disruptions, loss of ozone and increased skin cancers, cardiac deaths, and dementia. It is likely that a geomagnetic field collapse would cause much hardship and suffering, and potentially reverse more than two centuries of technological infrastructure development [113].
Initially, there was great hope that the Internet and, especially, social media platforms, would lead to lively exchanges and debates, and ultimately to a better-informed electorate. However, it was naïve to believe that any of the so-called "silicon valley mafia" who control that widereaching technology would not use it to deceive the electorate, and hence pervert the American election process. They do in fact deceive the public on matters of political concern [114, 115] and public health [116], which pose very real threats to the U.S. Constitutional Republic. For example, Google can subliminally manipulate votes by biased, deceptive search engine results, search suggestions, arbitrary tagging, editing, or deleting posted comments and videos, and other politically-oriented techniques that bias votes or limit understanding with no accountability and no paper trail. Recently, censoring individuals has become the norm.
The United States Constitution likely would not have been ratified if the ten amendments, referred to as the Bill of Rights, had not been added to guarantee the rights of individuals and to place limitations on state and federal governments. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the circumstances we describe above, namely, the perfect storm convergence of mega-scale legal and technological corruption that poses grave threats not only to Americans' "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but globally to humanity and environmental health. The protections granted by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights are inadequate. A more fundamental legal basis is needed.
What is needed, we posit, is one or more Constitutional Amendments that collectively form a Technology Bill of Rights that would: (1) Prohibit the application of any technique or method for changing -through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes -the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space; (2) Prohibit the application of any software based technique, process or platform or method for violating individuals free speech, censoring, altering, editing, deleting, excluding, blacklisting, or engaging in activities that have the effect of potentially biasing votes or deceiving the public on matters of health and/or environmental harm, which includes lying and/or misrepresentation; and, (3) Prohibit activities of such scale and nature that would intentionally or unintentionally alter the complex but delicate balance in nature by and between myriad biota and their environments that makes our planet habitable for life.
Whereas the meaning of (1) and (2) above is reasonably obvious in its meaning, (3) necessitates further clarification that may be inferred from the following non-exclusive examples of prohibited activities: • Use of metallic and/or nano-particulate additions to aircraft fuel; • Excessive launching of satellites, numbering in the tens of thousands, whose rocket exhaust might damage the ozone layer; • Excessive exposure of humans and other biota to electromagnetic radiation; • Use of electromagnetic radiation to heat the ionosphere; • Pollution of air, land, water, agriculture, and aquaculture by particulates, toxic chemicals, heavy metals, radioactive nuclides, and bio-toxins; and, • Strict oversight of biotechnology/bioengineering, including prohibition of gain-offunction experiments with potential pandemic pathogens.
There is, we posit, an urgent need for the United States to adopt a Second Constitutional Technology Bill of Rights, and for other sovereign nations to adopt similar fundamental measures if humanity, and our own children, are to live free and have a viable future [65]. There must be an immediate end to global technological methods including climate and weather intervention/control if there is any hope of salvaging Earth's remaining life support systems like the protective stratospheric ozone layer. Deceptive international agreements like ENMOD [42] that secretly mandate participation in or at least allow this type of geoengineering technology to proceed are tantamount to all-out war on the planetary Earth System and the entire web of life [3,5,117] and must cease if we are to survive and flourish.