The Invisible Rainbow in 9 languages

The political life has its own laws and rules, so has the social life.
The fact that electricity is first of all “an element that is to us more íntimate than the very air that we breathe” (Abbé Nollet 1746) has become a scientific and political means to manipulate the masses without them realizing it because to them the primary function of electricity lies solely in their external world.
Havana syndrome, Sudeck syndrome, neuroses of all kinds, and pandemics ring the bell to the sacred and internal dimension of this mysterious cosmic substance that was known to previous generations.
The Invisible Rainbow recollects its history from the 18th century up to date in a profound way and when reading it one wonders why it is not taught at all levels of the educational system across the planet….
….’The Sole of the Universe’ that produces and sustains Life thro-out all Nature, as well in Animals as in Vegetables” John Wesley the Methodist Church 1760


Cybertorture

So far, the psychiatrists, neurologists and doctors label such reports as schizophrenic, delusional and force people on anti-psychotic medication
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/feb/21/un-rapporteur-warns-of-rise-of-cybertorture-to-bypass-physical-ban?fbclid=IwAR0mIvFNEpODW8KspG0XulW8MqkmzSSiO2gskQOgHicfxRjCTgKWV3vjlh0

https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/academic/law/vnuconference2020/26.PTSon_CYBER-TORTURE.docx

https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/academic/law/vnuconference2020/26.PTSon_CYBER-TORTURE.docx

The European Journal of International Law on The far-reaching US proposals to amend the International Health Regulations at the upcoming 75th World Health Assembly: A call for attention

https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-far-reaching-us-proposals-to-amend-the-international-health-regulations-at-the-upcoming-75th-world-health-assembly-a-call-for-attention/

Global health talks clouded by conspiracy theories about pandemic treaty

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/22/wha-who-pandemic-treaty/

and the conspiracy theories from the European Journal of International Law say:

https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-far-reaching-us-proposals-to-amend-the-international-health-regulations-at-the-upcoming-75th-world-health-assembly-a-call-for-attention/

Tom Bearden On Human Mind Control Experimentation

So who and when is finally going to illegalize one of the very sources of unimaginable hatred within the atmosphere that I witnessed? We are talking about reality, not sci-fi. If we do not do it, the Creator will

Tom Bearden On Human
Mind Control Experimentation
From Eleanor White eleanor@raven1.net From A. Tyner atyner@nimbus.ocis.temple.edu 6-19-1

Bearden, Tom, “Mind Control and EM Wave Polarization Transductions – Part I, II & III”   I typed this excerpt because it does not print out on one page. Originally published in Explore (Vol. 9, No. 4) 1999, page 8 of Part III of the article posted at: http://www.cheniere.org/explore%20articles/mind%20control3/p08.jpg     Potential U.S. Rogue Groups and Two Recent Examples   Meanwhile, rogue groups amongst Western clandestine mind control researchers will probably arise if they have not already done so. They will likely seek to increase their personal control and further isolate the programs from orthodox government review and from government and legislative control. They may even divert the research into highly illegal and unethical means, because it furthers their own rogue agendas. That is how clandestine U.S. government research can sometimes go sour, unless great care is exercised by the oversight committees in the House and the Senate.   Sometimes when rogue groups do gain control and total secrecy of a given new technological area, then what appears to be “U.S. government operations” do start to encompass a criminal and unethical operations (sic), hidden usually beneath the deep veil of high classification. Also, if it’s “scientific,” no one is ever brought to justice, even if the “evil science actions” are uncovered and publicly revealed.   We Certainly Have Proof of Such Rogue Activity. For Example, Here are Two Prominent Cases   1. For three decades, scientists from the U.S. government, universities, and civilian contractors secretly conspired to treat unsuspecting human patients with whole body nuclear radiation, including some retarded children and cancer patients. Some of those patients _ including some of the retarded children _ died as a result. These illegal experiments were conducted in great secrecy, and the results were highly classified. Eventually these actions were revealed, and a Presidential investigation committee investigated. These experiments would seem to be little different from the WWII Nazi and Japanese experiments on human prisoners. Are those U.S. scientists who were responsible for those retarded children’s deaths any different from the Nazi scientists and criminals we executed at Nuremberg? So what happened when this terrible thing finally came out into the open? President Clinton publicly apologized! How many of the responsible scientists were indicted for murder? Not one. None is every going to be.   Suppose a doctor here in South Alabama with his own private clinic had secretly irradiated those human patients and retarded children with whole body nuclear radiation, over a period of 30 years, resulting in some agonizing deaths. How many state and federal agencies would have come after him with arrest warrants? Probably about 50 or so. Would he have been indicted, tried, convicted, and executed or sent to prison for life? Absolutely! Would the President of the United States have apologized? Not on your life; he would have turned it over to the U.S. Attorney General with a strong directive to investigate and prosecute on criminal charges.   2. Again for three decades, scientists from (i) the U.S. Government, (ii) universities, and (iii) civilian contractors conspired to give poor syphilitic blacks in Tuskegee, Alabama a placebo while ostensibly treating them for syphilis. The purpose of the program was to deliberately observe and record the ravages of the disease to its fruition in their wracked bodies. So the scientists deliberately sat there and watched their brains rot and their bodies rot. They kept meticulous notes, of course. It was very scientific and it was macabre. They “treated” some 400 Blacks in the “program.” Over 100 blacks died as a result of those ghoulish experiments. So what happened when this gruesome thing was revealed? Again President Clinton publicly apologized. The head of the executive branch did not turn the macabre matter over to his Attorney General to prosecute. How many of these scientists were indicted? Not one. How many are going to be indicted? Not one. Suppose again this had been done by a private doctor in his own private clinic. You get the point.   There is No Punishment for Rogue Scientific Groups   Shockingly, the U.S. government at the highest level has shown (and these are not all such cases by any means!) that mass crimes against U.S. civilians, perpetrated by portions of the U.S. scientific community in direct conspiracy and in secret, will likely be condoned. The perpetrators will not be indicted, tried, or convicted. (emphasis in the original)   Note the connection of the “rogue groups” thesis to the above incidents. Note how rogue scientific groups got away with it in both these cases. There may be other rogue scientific groups getting away with such things today. They should not be able to get away with it. But they can.   Perhaps a most startling additional part of those two incidents is that there was no great public outcry from scientific community, deploring these murders and demanding that the criminal scientists be indicted and tried.   As the old saying goes, “By their silence they have convicted themselves.” The organized scientific community, as a community, has shown that it has little or no ethics, and _ while deploring any scientific murdering that “gets revealed,” _ is not really interested in justice. In short, much of the U.S. scientific community may now have very little ethics left. (emphasis in original)   We are not talking about normal individual science, but the Big Science community. There is a whale of a difference between the two. In the Big Science community, there can be and there are rogue groups. Lots of them. There is deep cover, deep classification. And there is very probably advanced mind control research and testing, be it legal or illegal. Hopefully, most of it is legal and constrained. However, some of it is almost certain to be illegal and ill constrained.   Human beings are still human beings. All the good and evil is still there, regardless of the group. The stage settings change, but the cast of characters and the play never change.   It’s sad, but ’twas ever thus. Hidden parts of our own governments _ and other governments throughout the world _ are no different from the old medieval groups, where nobles etc. were always plotting against the king, or using the king’s power for their own nefarious end. The rogue groups today are no different from all the scheming and conniving groups that destroyed the Roman Empire. Great empires fall from within, not usually from without! (emphasis in original)   Conclusion   …Let us hope this great new area, already off to a bad start, can be bridled and steered in the direction of helping and healing people, instead of killing or abusing them. The excesses in its bad use is a potent threat to all nations on Earth. Yet it can revolutionize medical science, education, communication, and psychology. Eventually it can engineer the mind and memory directly, beneficially…

MainPage
http://www.rense.com

Global WAR-NING! Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity – Global Research

World leaders are meeting in Glasgow at COP-26. All eyes are now on “the imminent dangers of CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions”. The “climate emergency” is a timely instrument of propaganda used to distract people from questioning “the real crisis”, namely the Covid-19 “plandemic”.

Source: Global WAR-NING! Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity – Global Research

Time as an enemy and a friend

https://wikileaks.org/COP-26.html

Dagmar Palmerova
….
Czech Republic
15.10.2021

The Honorable Merrick GarlandAssociate Attorney General 
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Attorney General,

There are millions of people across the world waiting 11 years for the United States Department of Justice to reconsider its position on Mr. Julian Assange’s case. Everything has been said and written so many times that only the thunderous power of utter silence would surpass that.

When zooming out of opinions and generalizations of pros and against, of powers versus human rights, we can see the classical play of polarized forces of good and evil.

By studying the domain of esoterics anyone can see that superpowers have acquired their dominations over the masses through the classified development of the publicly accessible esoteric science, which has always been far ahead of the orthodox stream.

The impact of the application of such science surpasses the sovereign territories of all countries and it can destroy the whole planet, so far legally, because there are no laws that would protect us against it. The general public does not know about such science, not even the medical industry. From such a point of view, the use of espionage laws of the Dark Ages in the 21st century, where the whole planet shares information in a split of a second simply does not correspond with the enlarged visions of the majority of contemporary humans.

We need to be informed and trained to deal with the new horizons of life on our planet as an inseparable part of the entire Universe. „Safe and effective“ level of communication from such an angle of view is very unsafe and ineffective in the long run.

I am not a judge, rather a subject to be judged and not only in the case of Mr. Julian Assange and Wikileaks,

But to take free information from the public domain, experiment with it freely and secretly in the public domain, make the results states’ secrets, and jail the persons that bring it back to the public domain is called subjective justice.

Apart from this subjective, geographical role justice has also the objective role, superior to the first, to ensure that human conduct is in accordance with the objective laws of the Universe, encoded in the original plan for the GOOD of the whole CREATION. To reconcile both is a difficult and responsible role, for which I wish you all help of the MOST HOLY ABSOLUTE.

Respectfully yours,

Dagmar Palmerova

One copy sent to the US Embassy in Prague and to the Czech foreign minister

Electromagnetic weapons

The word “nuclear” has been used as a means to create fear in the public. In times when the truth cannot be stated directly one has to look at everything as if it were a symbol for something else, perhaps the truth? Or to mislead him/her even further from the truth?
The military experts say that the next war never uses the same order of weaponry. So if nuclear weaponry were already used 70 years ago, it would not be the leading means in the next one. Besides, why would you use the nuclear means that destroy not just the chosen targets but the whole territories for centuries to come, when you have the invisible, remotely controlled directed energy technology of psychotronic nature that destroys only what you want? It has been kept officially in darkness, despite generating billions of dollars on the world’s market stage. It is invisible, electronically controllable, and able to either just manipulate or completely incapacitate, even evaporate any object it chooses. Its source can be land-based, using cell towers, wi-fi technologies, satellites, etc. An ordinary person cannot hide from it anywhere on earth. They have been passed down to the private sector and Gladio armies’ style public and we use them indirectly via smartphones in so far legal, sadistic show-business that generates substantial wealth to many globally based companies and their customers.
In 2001 State Duma adopted Article 6 of the Federal Law of Russia on weapons by forbidding to circulate civil and service weapons and other items, “that have a damaging effect based on the use of electromagnetic, light, thermal, infrasound radiation….”
How we want but mainly can deal with it is a real puzzle to me. Maybe we do not? Perhaps that would be that hidden meaning of the word “nuclear”?

The Plan to Turn You Into a Genetically Edited Human Cyborg

Dr. Charles Morgan on Psycho-Neurobiology and War

MIT scientists have devised remotely controlled nanoparticles that, when pulsed with an electromagnetic field, release drugs to attack tumors.

The innovation, reported in the Nov. 15 online issue of Advanced Materials, could lead to the improved diagnosis and targeted treatment of cancer.
https://news.mit.edu/2007/nanodrugs-1120

“Recently, there has been increasing interest in developing methods where drug release from the injected or implanted delivery system can be controlled by an operator, perhaps via a remote device. Ideally, such systems could determine the time, duration, dosage, and even location of drug release, and could allow remote, non-invasive, repeatable, and reliable switching of therapeutic agent flux.2 These devices are beneficial to patients across a wide spectrum of ages, since they enable drug release profiles tailored to the specific therapy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3500532/

PLGA-Based Drug Delivery Systems for Remotely Triggered Cancer Therapeutic and Diagnostic Applications:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00381/full


Open AccessReview
Key Points in Remote-Controlled Drug Delivery: From the Carrier Design to Clinical Trials
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/17/9149/htm

Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning generally from Wikipedia.
(Of course, it can be applied not just to the selected species of dogs or rabbits.)

This article’s lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (March 2020)

Classical conditioning (also known as Pavlovian or respondent conditioning) is a behavioral procedure in which a biologically potent stimulus (e.g. food) is paired with a previously neutral stimulus (e.g. a bell). It also refers to the learning process that results from this pairing, through which the neutral stimulus comes to elicit a response (e.g. salivation) that is usually similar to the one elicited by the potent stimulus.

Classical conditioning is distinct from operant conditioning (also called instrumental conditioning), through which the strength of a voluntary behavior is modified by reinforcement or punishment. However, classical conditioning can affect operant conditioning in various ways; notably, classically conditioned stimuli may serve to reinforce operant responses.

Classical conditioning was first studied in detail by Ivan Pavlov, who conducted experiments with dogs and published his findings in 1897. During the Russian physiologist’s study of digestion, Pavlov observed that the dogs serving as his subjects drooled when they were being served meat.[1]

Classical conditioning is a basic behavioral mechanism, and its neural substrates are now beginning to be understood. Though it is sometimes hard to distinguish classical conditioning from other forms of associative learning (e.g. instrumental learning and human associative memory), a number of observations differentiate them, especially the contingencies whereby learning occurs.[2]

Together with operant conditioning, classical conditioning became the foundation of behaviorism, a school of psychology which was dominant in the mid-20th century and is still an important influence on the practice of psychological therapy and the study of animal behavior. Classical conditioning has been applied in other areas as well. For example, it may affect the body’s response to psychoactive drugs, the regulation of hunger, research on the neural basis of learning and memory, and in certain social phenomena such as the false consensus effect.[3]

Contents

Definition[edit]

Classical conditioning occurs when a conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US). Usually, the conditioned stimulus is a neutral stimulus (e.g., the sound of a tuning fork), the unconditioned stimulus is biologically potent (e.g., the taste of food) and the unconditioned response (UR) to the unconditioned stimulus is an unlearned reflex response (e.g., salivation). After pairing is repeated the organism exhibits a conditioned response (CR) to the conditioned stimulus when the conditioned stimulus is presented alone. (A conditioned response may occur after only one pairing.) Thus, unlike the UR, the CR is acquired through experience, and it is also less permanent than the UR.[4]

Usually the conditioned response is similar to the unconditioned response, but sometimes it is quite different. For this and other reasons, most learning theorists suggest that the conditioned stimulus comes to signal or predict the unconditioned stimulus, and go on to analyze the consequences of this signal.[5] Robert A. Rescorla provided a clear summary of this change in thinking, and its implications, in his 1988 article “Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think it is”.[6] Despite its widespread acceptance, Rescorla’s thesis may not be defensible.[7]

Classical conditioning differs from operant or instrumental conditioning: in classical conditioning, behaviors are modified through the association of stimuli as described above, whereas in operant conditioning behaviors are modified by the effect they produce (i.e., reward or punishment).[8]

Procedures[edit]

Ivan Pavlov research on dog’s reflex setup

Pavlov’s research[edit]

The best-known and most thorough early work on classical conditioning was done by Ivan Pavlov, although Edwin Twitmyer published some related findings a year earlier.[9] During his research on the physiology of digestion in dogs, Pavlov developed a procedure that enabled him to study the digestive processes of animals over long periods of time. He redirected the animal’s digestive fluids outside the body, where they could be measured. Pavlov noticed that his dogs began to salivate in the presence of the technician who normally fed them, rather than simply salivating in the presence of food. Pavlov called the dogs’ anticipatory salivation “psychic secretion”. Putting these informal observations to an experimental test, Pavlov presented a stimulus (e.g. the sound of a metronome) and then gave the dog food; after a few repetitions, the dogs started to salivate in response to the stimulus. Pavlov concluded that if a particular stimulus in the dog’s surroundings was present when the dog was given food then that stimulus could become associated with food and cause salivation on its own.Classical Conditioning Diagram

Terminology[edit]

In Pavlov’s experiments the unconditioned stimulus (US) was the food because its effects did not depend on previous experience. The metronome’s sound is originally a neutral stimulus (NS) because it does not elicit salivation in the dogs. After conditioning, the metronome’s sound becomes the conditioned stimulus (CS) or conditional stimulus; because its effects depend on its association with food.[10] Likewise, the responses of the dog follow the same conditioned-versus-unconditioned arrangement. The conditioned response (CR) is the response to the conditioned stimulus, whereas the unconditioned response (UR) corresponds to the unconditioned stimulus.

Pavlov reported many basic facts about conditioning; for example, he found that learning occurred most rapidly when the interval between the CS and the appearance of the US was relatively short.[11]

As noted earlier, it is often thought that the conditioned response is a replica of the unconditioned response, but Pavlov noted that saliva produced by the CS differs in composition from that produced by the US. In fact, the CR may be any new response to the previously neutral CS that can be clearly linked to experience with the conditional relationship of CS and US.[6][8] It was also thought that repeated pairings are necessary for conditioning to emerge, but many CRs can be learned with a single trial, especially in fear conditioning and taste aversion learning.Diagram representing forward conditioning. The time interval increases from left to right.

Forward conditioning[edit]

Learning is fastest in forward conditioning. During forward conditioning, the onset of the CS precedes the onset of the US in order to signal that the US will follow.[12][13]: 69  Two common forms of forward conditioning are delay and trace conditioning.

  • Delay conditioning: In delay conditioning, the CS is presented and is overlapped by the presentation of the US. For example, if a person hears a buzzer for five seconds, during which time air is puffed into their eye, the person will blink. After several pairings of the buzzer and the puff, the person will blink at the sound of the buzzer alone. This is delay conditioning.
  • Trace conditioning: During trace conditioning, the CS and US do not overlap. Instead, the CS begins and ends before the US is presented. The stimulus-free period is called the trace interval or the conditioning interval. If in the above buzzer example, the puff came a second after the sound of the buzzer stopped, that would be trace conditioning, with a trace or conditioning interval of one second.
Forward Conditioning.svg

Simultaneous conditioning[edit]

Classical conditioning procedures and effects

During simultaneous conditioning, the CS and US are presented and terminated at the same time. For example: If a person hears a bell and has air puffed into their eye at the same time, and repeated pairings like this led to the person blinking when they hear the bell despite the puff of air being absent, this demonstrates that simultaneous conditioning has occurred. 

Second-order and higher-order conditioning[edit]

Main article: Second-order conditioning

Second-order or higher-order conditioning follow a two-step procedure. First a neutral stimulus (“CS1”) comes to signal a US through forward conditioning. Then a second neutral stimulus (“CS2”) is paired with the first (CS1) and comes to yield its own conditioned response.[13]: 66  For example: A bell might be paired with food until the bell elicits salivation. If a light is then paired with the bell, then the light may come to elicit salivation as well. The bell is the CS1 and the food is the US. The light becomes the CS2 once it is paired with the CS1.

Second Order Conditioning.svg

Backward conditioning[edit]

Backward conditioning occurs when a CS immediately follows a US.[12] Unlike the usual conditioning procedure, in which the CS precedes the US, the conditioned response given to the CS tends to be inhibitory. This presumably happens because the CS serves as a signal that the US has ended, rather than as a signal that the US is about to appear.[13]: 71  For example, a puff of air directed at a person’s eye could be followed by the sound of a buzzer.

Temporal conditioning[edit]

In temporal conditioning, a US is presented at regular intervals, for instance every 10 minutes. Conditioning is said to have occurred when the CR tends to occur shortly before each US. This suggests that animals have a biological clock that can serve as a CS. This method has also been used to study timing ability in animals (see Animal cognition).

The example below shows the temporal conditioning, as US such as food to a hungry mouse is simply delivered on a regular time schedule such as every thirty seconds. After sufficient exposure the mouse will begin to salivate just before the food delivery. This then makes it temporal conditioning as it would appear that the mouse is conditioned to the passage of time. 

Zero contingency procedure[edit]

In this procedure, the CS is paired with the US, but the US also occurs at other times. If this occurs, it is predicted that the US is likely to happen in the absence of the CS. In other words, the CS does not “predict” the US. In this case, conditioning fails and the CS does not come to elicit a CR.[14] This finding – that prediction rather than CS-US pairing is the key to conditioning – greatly influenced subsequent conditioning research and theory.

Extinction[edit]

Main article: Extinction (psychology)

In the extinction procedure, the CS is presented repeatedly in the absence of a US. This is done after a CS has been conditioned by one of the methods above. When this is done, the CR frequency eventually returns to pre-training levels. However, extinction does not eliminate the effects of the prior conditioning. This is demonstrated by spontaneous recovery – when there is a sudden appearance of the (CR) after extinction occurs – and other related phenomena (see “Recovery from extinction” below). These phenomena can be explained by postulating accumulation of inhibition when a weak stimulus is presented.

Phenomena observed[edit]

Acquisition[edit]

During acquisition, the CS and US are paired as described above. The extent of conditioning may be tracked by test trials. In these test trials, the CS is presented alone and the CR is measured. A single CS-US pairing may suffice to yield a CR on a test, but usually a number of pairings are necessary and there is a gradual increase in the conditioned response to the CS. This repeated number of trials increase the strength and/or frequency of the CR gradually. The speed of conditioning depends on a number of factors, such as the nature and strength of both the CS and the US, previous experience and the animal’s motivational state.[5][8] The process slows down as it nears completion.[15]

Extinction[edit]

If the CS is presented without the US, and this process is repeated often enough, the CS will eventually stop eliciting a CR. At this point the CR is said to be “extinguished.”[5][16]

Classical conditioning - extinction.svg

External inhibition[edit]

External inhibition may be observed if a strong or unfamiliar stimulus is presented just before, or at the same time as, the CS. This causes a reduction in the conditioned response to the CS.

Recovery from extinction[edit]

Several procedures lead to the recovery of a CR that had been first conditioned and then extinguished. This illustrates that the extinction procedure does not eliminate the effect of conditioning.[8] These procedures are the following:

  • Reacquisition: If the CS is again paired with the US, a CR is again acquired, but this second acquisition usually happens much faster than the first one.
  • Spontaneous recovery: Spontaneous recovery is defined as the reappearance of a previously extinguished conditioned response after a rest period. That is, if the CS is tested at a later time (for example an hour or a day) after extinction it will again elicit a CR. This renewed CR is usually much weaker than the CR observed prior to extinction.
  • Disinhibition: If the CS is tested just after extinction and an intense but associatively neutral stimulus has occurred, there may be a temporary recovery of the conditioned response to the CS.
  • Reinstatement: If the US used in conditioning is presented to a subject in the same place where conditioning and extinction occurred, but without the CS being present, the CS often elicits a response when it is tested later.
  • Renewal: Renewal is a reemergence of a conditioned response following extinction when an animal is returned to the environment in which the conditioned response was acquired.

Stimulus generalization[edit]

Stimulus generalization is said to occur if, after a particular CS has come to elicit a CR, a similar test stimulus is found to elicit the same CR. Usually the more similar the test stimulus is to the CS the stronger the CR will be to the test stimulus.[5] Conversely, the more the test stimulus differs from the CS, the weaker the CR will be, or the more it will differ from that previously observed.

Stimulus discrimination[edit]

One observes stimulus discrimination when one stimulus (“CS1”) elicits one CR and another stimulus (“CS2”) elicits either another CR or no CR at all. This can be brought about by, for example, pairing CS1 with an effective US and presenting CS2 with no US.[5]

Latent inhibition[edit]

Main article: Latent inhibition

Latent inhibition refers to the observation that it takes longer for a familiar stimulus to become a CS than it does for a novel stimulus to become a CS, when the stimulus is paired with an effective US.[5]

Conditioned suppression[edit]

This is one of the most common ways to measure the strength of learning in classical conditioning. A typical example of this procedure is as follows: a rat first learns to press a lever through operant conditioning. Then, in a series of trials, the rat is exposed to a CS, a light or a noise, followed by the US, a mild electric shock. An association between the CS and US develops, and the rat slows or stops its lever pressing when the CS comes on. The rate of pressing during the CS measures the strength of classical conditioning; that is, the slower the rat presses, the stronger the association of the CS and the US. (Slow pressing indicates a “fear” conditioned response, and it is an example of a conditioned emotional response; see section below.)

Conditioned inhibition[edit]

Typically, three phases of conditioning are used.

Phase 1[edit]

A CS (CS+) is paired with a US until asymptotic CR levels are reached.

Phase 2[edit]

CS+/US trials are continued, but these are interspersed with trials on which the CS+ is paired with a second CS, (the CS-) but not with the US (i.e. CS+/CS- trials). Typically, organisms show CRs on CS+/US trials, but stop responding on CS+/CS− trials.

Phase 3[edit]

  • Summation test for conditioned inhibition: The CS- from phase 2 is presented together with a new CS+ that was conditioned as in phase 1. Conditioned inhibition is found if the response is less to the CS+/CS- pair than it is to the CS+ alone.
  • Retardation test for conditioned inhibition: The CS- from phase 2 is paired with the US. If conditioned inhibition has occurred, the rate of acquisition to the previous CS− should be less than the rate of acquisition that would be found without the phase 2 treatment.

Blocking[edit]

Main article: Blocking effect

This form of classical conditioning involves two phases.

Phase 1[edit]

A CS (CS1) is paired with a US.

Phase 2[edit]

A compound CS (CS1+CS2) is paired with a US.

Test[edit]

A separate test for each CS (CS1 and CS2) is performed. The blocking effect is observed in a lack of conditional response to CS2, suggesting that the first phase of training blocked the acquisition of the second CS. 

Theories[edit]

Data sources[edit]

Experiments on theoretical issues in conditioning have mostly been done on vertebrates, especially rats and pigeons. However, conditioning has also been studied in invertebrates, and very important data on the neural basis of conditioning has come from experiments on the sea slug, Aplysia.[5] Most relevant experiments have used the classical conditioning procedure, although instrumental (operant) conditioning experiments have also been used, and the strength of classical conditioning is often measured through its operant effects, as in conditioned suppression (see Phenomena section above) and autoshaping.

Stimulus-substitution theory[edit]

Further information: Counterconditioning

According to Pavlov, conditioning does not involve the acquisition of any new behavior, but rather the tendency to respond in old ways to new stimuli. Thus, he theorized that the CS merely substitutes for the US in evoking the reflex response. This explanation is called the stimulus-substitution theory of conditioning.[13]: 84  A critical problem with the stimulus-substitution theory is that the CR and UR are not always the same. Pavlov himself observed that a dog’s saliva produced as a CR differed in composition from that produced as a UR.[9] The CR is sometimes even the opposite of the UR. For example: the unconditional response to electric shock is an increase in heart rate, whereas a CS that has been paired with the electric shock elicits a decrease in heart rate. (However, it has been proposed[by whom?] that only when the UR does not involve the central nervous system are the CR and the UR opposites.)

Rescorla–Wagner model[edit]

Main article: Rescorla–Wagner model

The Rescorla–Wagner (R–W) model[8][17] is a relatively simple yet powerful model of conditioning. The model predicts a number of important phenomena, but it also fails in important ways, thus leading to a number of modifications and alternative models. However, because much of the theoretical research on conditioning in the past 40 years has been instigated by this model or reactions to it, the R–W model deserves a brief description here.[18][13]: 85 

The Rescorla-Wagner model argues that there is a limit to the amount of conditioning that can occur in the pairing of two stimuli. One determinant of this limit is the nature of the US. For example: pairing a bell with a juicy steak is more likely to produce salivation than pairing the bell with a piece of dry bread, and dry bread is likely to work better than a piece of cardboard. A key idea behind the R–W model is that a CS signals or predicts the US. One might say that before conditioning, the subject is surprised by the US. However, after conditioning, the subject is no longer surprised, because the CS predicts the coming of the US. (Note that the model can be described mathematically and that words like predict, surprise, and expect are only used to help explain the model.) Here the workings of the model are illustrated with brief accounts of acquisition, extinction, and blocking. The model also predicts a number of other phenomena, see main article on the model.

Equation[edit]

{\displaystyle \Delta V=\alpha \beta (\lambda -\Sigma V)}{\displaystyle \Delta V=\alpha \beta (\lambda -\Sigma V)}

This is the Rescorla-Wagner equation. It specifies the amount of learning that will occur on a single pairing of a conditioning stimulus (CS) with an unconditioned stimulus (US). The above equation is solved repeatedly to predict the course of learning over many such trials.

In this model the degree of learning is measured by how well the CS predicts the US, which is given by the “associative strength” of the CS. In the equation, V represents the current associative strength of the CS, and ∆V is the change in this strength that happens on a given trial. ΣV is the sum of the strengths of all stimuli present in the situation. λ is the maximum associative strength that a given US will support; its value is usually set to 1 on trials when the US is present, and 0 when the US is absent. α and β are constants related to the salience of the CS and the speed of learning for a given US. How the equation predicts various experimental results is explained in following sections. For further details, see the main article on the model.[13]: 85–89 

R–W model: acquisition[edit]

The R–W model measures conditioning by assigning an “associative strength” to the CS and other local stimuli. Before a CS is conditioned it has an associative strength of zero. Pairing the CS and the US causes a gradual increase in the associative strength of the CS. This increase is determined by the nature of the US (e.g. its intensity).[13]: 85–89  The amount of learning that happens during any single CS-US pairing depends on the difference between the total associative strengths of CS and other stimuli present in the situation (ΣV in the equation), and a maximum set by the US (λ in the equation). On the first pairing of the CS and US, this difference is large and the associative strength of the CS takes a big step up. As CS-US pairings accumulate, the US becomes more predictable, and the increase in associative strength on each trial becomes smaller and smaller. Finally, the difference between the associative strength of the CS (plus any that may accrue to other stimuli) and the maximum strength reaches zero. That is, the US is fully predicted, the associative strength of the CS stops growing, and conditioning is complete.

R–W model: extinction[edit]

Comparing the associate strength by R-W model in Learning

The associative process described by the R–W model also accounts for extinction (see “procedures” above). The extinction procedure starts with a positive associative strength of the CS, which means that the CS predicts that the US will occur. On an extinction trial the US fails to occur after the CS. As a result of this “surprising” outcome, the associative strength of the CS takes a step down. Extinction is complete when the strength of the CS reaches zero; no US is predicted, and no US occurs. However, if that same CS is presented without the US but accompanied by a well-established conditioned inhibitor (CI), that is, a stimulus that predicts the absence of a US (in R-W terms, a stimulus with a negative associate strength) then R-W predicts that the CS will not undergo extinction (its V will not decrease in size).

R–W model: blocking[edit]

Main article: Blocking effect

The most important and novel contribution of the R–W model is its assumption that the conditioning of a CS depends not just on that CS alone, and its relationship to the US, but also on all other stimuli present in the conditioning situation. In particular, the model states that the US is predicted by the sum of the associative strengths of all stimuli present in the conditioning situation. Learning is controlled by the difference between this total associative strength and the strength supported by the US. When this sum of strengths reaches a maximum set by the US, conditioning ends as just described.[13]: 85–89 

The R–W explanation of the blocking phenomenon illustrates one consequence of the assumption just stated. In blocking (see “phenomena” above), CS1 is paired with a US until conditioning is complete. Then on additional conditioning trials a second stimulus (CS2) appears together with CS1, and both are followed by the US. Finally CS2 is tested and shown to produce no response because learning about CS2 was “blocked” by the initial learning about CS1. The R–W model explains this by saying that after the initial conditioning, CS1 fully predicts the US. Since there is no difference between what is predicted and what happens, no new learning happens on the additional trials with CS1+CS2, hence CS2 later yields no response.

Theoretical issues and alternatives to the Rescorla–Wagner model[edit]

One of the main reasons for the importance of the R–W model is that it is relatively simple and makes clear predictions. Tests of these predictions have led to a number of important new findings and a considerably increased understanding of conditioning. Some new information has supported the theory, but much has not, and it is generally agreed that the theory is, at best, too simple. However, no single model seems to account for all the phenomena that experiments have produced.[8][19] Following are brief summaries of some related theoretical issues.[18]

Content of learning[edit]

The R–W model reduces conditioning to the association of a CS and US, and measures this with a single number, the associative strength of the CS. A number of experimental findings indicate that more is learned than this. Among these are two phenomena described earlier in this article

  • Latent inhibition: If a subject is repeatedly exposed to the CS before conditioning starts, then conditioning takes longer. The R–W model cannot explain this because preexposure leaves the strength of the CS unchanged at zero.
  • Recovery of responding after extinction: It appears that something remains after extinction has reduced associative strength to zero because several procedures cause responding to reappear without further conditioning.[8]

Role of attention in learning[edit]

Latent inhibition might happen because a subject stops focusing on a CS that is seen frequently before it is paired with a US. In fact, changes in attention to the CS are at the heart of two prominent theories that try to cope with experimental results that give the R–W model difficulty. In one of these, proposed by Nicholas Mackintosh,[20] the speed of conditioning depends on the amount of attention devoted to the CS, and this amount of attention depends in turn on how well the CS predicts the US. Pearce and Hall proposed a related model based on a different attentional principle[21] Both models have been extensively tested, and neither explains all the experimental results. Consequently, various authors have attempted hybrid models that combine the two attentional processes. Pearce and Hall in 2010 integrated their attentional ideas and even suggested the possibility of incorporating the Rescorla-Wagner equation into an integrated model.[8]

Context[edit]

As stated earlier, a key idea in conditioning is that the CS signals or predicts the US (see “zero contingency procedure” above). However, for example, the room in which conditioning takes place also “predicts” that the US may occur. Still, the room predicts with much less certainty than does the experimental CS itself, because the room is also there between experimental trials, when the US is absent. The role of such context is illustrated by the fact that the dogs in Pavlov’s experiment would sometimes start salivating as they approached the experimental apparatus, before they saw or heard any CS.[15] Such so-called “context” stimuli are always present, and their influence helps to account for some otherwise puzzling experimental findings. The associative strength of context stimuli can be entered into the Rescorla-Wagner equation, and they play an important role in the comparator and computational theories outlined below.[8]

Comparator theory[edit]

To find out what has been learned, we must somehow measure behavior (“performance”) in a test situation. However, as students know all too well, performance in a test situation is not always a good measure of what has been learned. As for conditioning, there is evidence that subjects in a blocking experiment do learn something about the “blocked” CS, but fail to show this learning because of the way that they are usually tested.

“Comparator” theories of conditioning are “performance based”, that is, they stress what is going on at the time of the test. In particular, they look at all the stimuli that are present during testing and at how the associations acquired by these stimuli may interact.[22][23] To oversimplify somewhat, comparator theories assume that during conditioning the subject acquires both CS-US and context-US associations. At the time of the test, these associations are compared, and a response to the CS occurs only if the CS-US association is stronger than the context-US association. After a CS and US are repeatedly paired in simple acquisition, the CS-US association is strong and the context-US association is relatively weak. This means that the CS elicits a strong CR. In “zero contingency” (see above), the conditioned response is weak or absent because the context-US association is about as strong as the CS-US association. Blocking and other more subtle phenomena can also be explained by comparator theories, though, again, they cannot explain everything.[8][18]

Computational theory[edit]

An organism’s need to predict future events is central to modern theories of conditioning. Most theories use associations between stimuli to take care of these predictions. For example: In the R–W model, the associative strength of a CS tells us how strongly that CS predicts a US. A different approach to prediction is suggested by models such as that proposed by Gallistel & Gibbon (2000, 2002).[24][25] Here the response is not determined by associative strengths. Instead, the organism records the times of onset and offset of CSs and USs and uses these to calculate the probability that the US will follow the CS. A number of experiments have shown that humans and animals can learn to time events (see Animal cognition), and the Gallistel & Gibbon model yields very good quantitative fits to a variety of experimental data.[5][18] However, recent studies have suggested that duration-based models cannot account for some empirical findings as well as associative models.[26]

Element-based models[edit]

The Rescorla-Wagner model treats a stimulus as a single entity, and it represents the associative strength of a stimulus with one number, with no record of how that number was reached. As noted above, this makes it hard for the model to account for a number of experimental results. More flexibility is provided by assuming that a stimulus is internally represented by a collection of elements, each of which may change from one associative state to another. For example, the similarity of one stimulus to another may be represented by saying that the two stimuli share elements in common. These shared elements help to account for stimulus generalization and other phenomena that may depend upon generalization. Also, different elements within the same set may have different associations, and their activations and associations may change at different times and at different rates. This allows element-based models to handle some otherwise inexplicable results.

The SOP model[edit]

A prominent example of the element approach is the “SOP” model of Wagner.[27] The model has been elaborated in various ways since its introduction, and it can now account in principle for a very wide variety of experimental findings.[8] The model represents any given stimulus with a large collection of elements. The time of presentation of various stimuli, the state of their elements, and the interactions between the elements, all determine the course of associative processes and the behaviors observed during conditioning experiments.

The SOP account of simple conditioning exemplifies some essentials of the SOP model. To begin with, the model assumes that the CS and US are each represented by a large group of elements. Each of these stimulus elements can be in one of three states:

  • primary activity (A1) – Roughly speaking, the stimulus is “attended to.” (References to “attention” are intended only to aid understanding and are not part of the model.)
  • secondary activity (A2) – The stimulus is “peripherally attended to.”
  • inactive (I) – The stimulus is “not attended to.”

Of the elements that represent a single stimulus at a given moment, some may be in state A1, some in state A2, and some in state I.

When a stimulus first appears, some of its elements jump from inactivity I to primary activity A1. From the A1 state they gradually decay to A2, and finally back to I. Element activity can only change in this way; in particular, elements in A2 cannot go directly back to A1. If the elements of both the CS and the US are in the A1 state at the same time, an association is learned between the two stimuli. This means that if, at a later time, the CS is presented ahead of the US, and some CS elements enter A1, these elements will activate some US elements. However, US elements activated indirectly in this way only get boosted to the A2 state. (This can be thought of the CS arousing a memory of the US, which will not be as strong as the real thing.) With repeated CS-US trials, more and more elements are associated, and more and more US elements go to A2 when the CS comes on. This gradually leaves fewer and fewer US elements that can enter A1 when the US itself appears. In consequence, learning slows down and approaches a limit. One might say that the US is “fully predicted” or “not surprising” because almost all of its elements can only enter A2 when the CS comes on, leaving few to form new associations.

The model can explain the findings that are accounted for by the Rescorla-Wagner model and a number of additional findings as well. For example, unlike most other models, SOP takes time into account. The rise and decay of element activation enables the model to explain time-dependent effects such as the fact that conditioning is strongest when the CS comes just before the US, and that when the CS comes after the US (“backward conditioning”) the result is often an inhibitory CS. Many other more subtle phenomena are explained as well.[8]

A number of other powerful models have appeared in recent years which incorporate element representations. These often include the assumption that associations involve a network of connections between “nodes” that represent stimuli, responses, and perhaps one or more “hidden” layers of intermediate interconnections. Such models make contact with a current explosion of research on neural networksartificial intelligence and machine learning.[citation needed]

Applications[edit]

Neural basis of learning and memory[edit]

Pavlov proposed that conditioning involved a connection between brain centers for conditioned and unconditioned stimuli. His physiological account of conditioning has been abandoned, but classical conditioning continues to be used to study the neural structures and functions that underlie learning and memory. Forms of classical conditioning that are used for this purpose include, among others, fear conditioningeyeblink conditioning, and the foot contraction conditioning of Hermissenda crassicornis, a sea-slug. Both fear and eyeblink conditioning involve a neutral stimulus, frequently a tone, becoming paired with an unconditioned stimulus. In the case of eyeblink conditioning, the US is an air-puff, while in fear conditioning the US is threatening or aversive such as a foot shock.

“Available data demonstrate that discrete regions of the cerebellum and associated brainstem areas contain neurons that alter their activity during conditioning – these regions are critical for the acquisition and performance of this simple learning task. It appears that other regions of the brain, including the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex, contribute to the conditioning process, especially when the demands of the task get more complex.”[28]

Fear and eyeblink conditioning involve generally non overlapping neural circuitry, but share molecular mechanisms. Fear conditioning occurs in the basolateral amygdala, which receives glutaminergic input directly from thalamic afferents, as well as indirectly from prefrontal projections. The direct projections are sufficient for delay conditioning, but in the case of trace conditioning, where the CS needs to be internally represented despite a lack of external stimulus, indirect pathways are necessary. The anterior cingulate is one candidate for intermediate trace conditioning, but the hippocampus may also play a major role. Presynaptic activation of protein kinase A and postsynaptic activation of NMDA receptors and its signal transduction pathway are necessary for conditioning related plasticity. CREB is also necessary for conditioning related plasticity, and it may induce downstream synthesis of proteins necessary for this to occur.[29] As NMDA receptors are only activated after an increase in presynaptic calcium(thereby releasing the Mg2+ block), they are a potential coincidence detector that could mediate spike timing dependent plasticity. STDP constrains LTP to situations where the CS predicts the US, and LTD to the reverse.[30]

Behavioral therapies[edit]

Main article: Behavior therapy

Some therapies associated with classical conditioning are aversion therapysystematic desensitization and flooding. Aversion therapy is a type of behavior therapy designed to make patients cease an undesirable habit by associating the habit with a strong unpleasant unconditioned stimulus.[31]: 336  For example, a medication might be used to associate the taste of alcohol with stomach upset. Systematic desensitization is a treatment for phobias in which the patient is trained to relax while being exposed to progressively more anxiety-provoking stimuli (e.g. angry words). This is an example of counterconditioning, intended to associate the feared stimuli with a response (relaxation) that is incompatible with anxiety[31]: 136  Flooding is a form of desensitization that attempts to eliminate phobias and anxieties by repeated exposure to highly distressing stimuli until the lack of reinforcement of the anxiety response causes its extinction.[31]: 133  “Flooding” usually involves actual exposure to the stimuli, whereas the term “implosion” refers to imagined exposure, but the two terms are sometimes used synonymously.

Conditioning therapies usually take less time than humanistic therapies.[32]

Conditioned drug response[edit]

A stimulus that is present when a drug is administered or consumed may eventually evoke a conditioned physiological response that mimics the effect of the drug. This is sometimes the case with caffeine; habitual coffee drinkers may find that the smell of coffee gives them a feeling of alertness. In other cases, the conditioned response is a compensatory reaction that tends to offset the effects of the drug. For example, if a drug causes the body to become less sensitive to pain, the compensatory conditioned reaction may be one that makes the user more sensitive to pain. This compensatory reaction may contribute to drug tolerance. If so, a drug user may increase the amount of drug consumed in order to feel its effects, and end up taking very large amounts of the drug. In this case a dangerous overdose reaction may occur if the CS happens to be absent, so that the conditioned compensatory effect fails to occur. For example, if the drug has always been administered in the same room, the stimuli provided by that room may produce a conditioned compensatory effect; then an overdose reaction may happen if the drug is administered in a different location where the conditioned stimuli are absent.[33]

Conditioned hunger[edit]

Signals that consistently precede food intake can become conditioned stimuli for a set of bodily responses that prepares the body for food and digestion. These reflexive responses include the secretion of digestive juices into the stomach and the secretion of certain hormones into the blood stream, and they induce a state of hunger. An example of conditioned hunger is the “appetizer effect.” Any signal that consistently precedes a meal, such as a clock indicating that it is time for dinner, can cause people to feel hungrier than before the signal. The lateral hypothalamus (LH) is involved in the initiation of eating. The nigrostriatal pathway, which includes the substantia nigra, the lateral hypothalamus, and the basal ganglia have been shown to be involved in hunger motivation.[citation needed]

Conditioned emotional response[edit]

Further information: Conditioned emotional response and Fear conditioning

The influence of classical conditioning can be seen in emotional responses such as phobia, disgust, nausea, anger, and sexual arousal. A familiar example is conditioned nausea, in which the CS is the sight or smell of a particular food that in the past has resulted in an unconditioned stomach upset. Similarly, when the CS is the sight of a dog and the US is the pain of being bitten, the result may be a conditioned fear of dogs. An example of conditioned emotional response is conditioned suppression.

As an adaptive mechanism, emotional conditioning helps shield an individual from harm or prepare it for important biological events such as sexual activity. Thus, a stimulus that has occurred before sexual interaction comes to cause sexual arousal, which prepares the individual for sexual contact. For example, sexual arousal has been conditioned in human subjects by pairing a stimulus like a picture of a jar of pennies with views of an erotic film clip. Similar experiments involving blue gourami fish and domesticated quail have shown that such conditioning can increase the number of offspring. These results suggest that conditioning techniques might help to increase fertility rates in infertile individuals and endangered species.[34]

Pavlovian-instrumental transfer[edit]

Main article: Pavlovian-instrumental transfer

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it(May 2017)

Pavlovian-instrumental transfer is a phenomenon that occurs when a conditioned stimulus (CS, also known as a “cue”) that has been associated with rewarding or aversive stimuli via classical conditioning alters motivational salience and operant behavior.[35][36][37][38] In a typical experiment, a rat is presented with sound-food pairings (classical conditioning). Separately, the rat learns to press a lever to get food (operant conditioning). Test sessions now show that the rat presses the lever faster in the presence of the sound than in silence, although the sound has never been associated with lever pressing.

Pavlovian-instrumental transfer is suggested to play a role in the differential outcomes effect, a procedure which enhances operant discrimination by pairing stimuli with specific outcomes.[citation needed]

This section appears to contain trivial, minor, or unrelated references to popular culture. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject’s impact on popular culture, providing citations to reliable, secondary sources, rather than simply listing appearances. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2021)

In the 1932 novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, conditioning plays a key role in the maintenance of social peace, especially in maintaining the caste system upon which society is based. Another example is in Anthony Burgess‘ 1962 dystopian novel A Clockwork Orange in which the novel’s anti-hero and protagonist, Alex, undergoes a procedure called the Ludovico technique, where he is fed a solution to cause severe nausea and then forced to watch violent acts. This renders him unable to perform any violent acts without inducing similar nausea. Unintentionally, he also forms an aversion to classical music.

Some general examples that involve the classical conditioning theory in action include, in a lot of cases, advertising. This is a tactic used in order to elicit a response. Advertising on game shows is one of many examples. With the exciting and positive environment of a game show, the viewer may then start to generate an exciting response to the advertisement because of the association with the environment. Another example, very similar to Pavlov’s experiment, involves food. Every time a person goes into the kitchen, they begin to feel hungry. This can also relate to eating certain foods while watching a scary movie turning into associating terror with the food that was being consumed at the times of watching the movie. Any type of music, such as Christmas music, that triggers certain sweet memories are related to classical conditioning as well.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Coon, Dennis; Mitterer, John O. (2008). Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior. Cengage Learning. p. 220. ISBN 9780495599111.
  2. ^ McSweeney, Frances K.; Murphy, Eric S. (2014). The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Operant and Classical Conditioning. Malden. MA: John Wiley & Sons. p. 3. ISBN 9781118468180.
  3. ^ Tarantola, Tor; Kumaran, Dharshan; Dayan, Peter; De Martino, Benedetto (2017-10-10). “Prior preferences beneficially influence social and non-social learning”Nature Communications8 (1): 817. Bibcode:2017NatCo…8..817Tdoi:10.1038/s41467-017-00826-8ISSN 2041-1723PMC 5635122PMID 29018195.
  4. ^ Cherry K. “What Is a Conditioned Response?”About.com GuideAbout.comArchived from the original on 2013-01-21. Retrieved 2013-02-10.
  5. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Shettleworth SJ (2010). Cognition, Evolution, and Behavior (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
  6. Jump up to:a b Rescorla RA (March 1988). “Pavlovian conditioning. It’s not what you think it is” (PDF). The American Psychologist43 (3): 151–60. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.156.1219doi:10.1037/0003-066X.43.3.151PMID 3364852Archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-06-11. Retrieved 2014-04-02.
  7. ^ Papini MR, Bitterman ME (July 1990). “The role of contingency in classical conditioning”. Psychological Review97 (3): 396–403. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.396PMID 2200077.
  8. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l Bouton ME (2016). Learning and Behavior: A Contemporary Synthesis (2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
  9. Jump up to:a b Pavlov IP (1960) [1927]. Conditional Reflexes. New York: Dover Publications. Archived from the original on 2020-09-21. Retrieved 2007-05-02. (the 1960 edition is not an unaltered republication of the 1927 translation by Oxford University Press )
  10. ^ Medin DL, Ross BH, Markmen AB (2009). Cognitive Psychology. pp. 50–53.
  11. ^ Brink TL (2008). “Unit 6: Learning” (PDF). Psychology: A Student Friendly Approach. pp. 97–98. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2012-04-16. Retrieved 2012-05-30.
  12. Jump up to:a b Chang RC, Stout S, Miller RR (January 2004). “Comparing excitatory backward and forward conditioning”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. B, Comparative and Physiological Psychology57 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1080/02724990344000015PMID 14690847.
  13. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Chance P (2008). Learning and Behavior. Belmont/CA: Wadsworth. ISBN 978-0-495-09564-4.
  14. ^ Rescorla RA (January 1967). “Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures” (PDF). Psychological Review74 (1): 71–80. doi:10.1037/h0024109PMID 5341445Archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-04-07. Retrieved 2014-04-02.
  15. Jump up to:a b Schacter DL (2009). Psychology. Catherine Woods. p. 267ISBN 978-1-4292-3719-2.
  16. ^ Chan CK, Harris JA (August 2017). “Extinction of Pavlovian conditioning: The influence of trial number and reinforcement history”Behavioural Processes. SQAB 2016: Persistence and Relapse. 141 (Pt 1): 19–25. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2017.04.017PMID 28473250S2CID 3483001Archived from the original on 2021-06-27. Retrieved 2021-05-25.
  17. ^ Rescorla RA, Wagner AR (1972). “A theory of Pavlovan conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement.”. In Black AH, Prokasy WF (eds.). Classical Conditioning II: Current Theory and Research. New York: Appleton-Century. pp. 64–99.
  18. Jump up to:a b c d Miller R, Escobar M (2004-02-05). “Learning: Laws and Models of Basic Conditioning”. In Pashler H, Gallistel R (eds.). Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology. 3: Learning, Motivation & Emotion (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. pp. 47–102. ISBN 978-0-471-65016-4.
  19. ^ Miller RR, Barnet RC, Grahame NJ (May 1995). “Assessment of the Rescorla-Wagner model”. Psychological Bulletin117 (3): 363–86. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.363PMID 7777644.
  20. ^ Mackintosh NJ (1975). “A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement”. Psychological Review82 (4): 276–298. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.556.1688doi:10.1037/h0076778.
  21. ^ Pearce JM, Hall G (November 1980). “A model for Pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli”. Psychological Review87 (6): 532–52. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.532PMID 7443916.
  22. ^ Gibbon J, Balsam P (1981). “Spreading association in time.”. In Locurto CM, Terrace HS, Gibbon J (eds.). Autoshaping and conditioning theory. New York: Academic Press. pp. 219–235.
  23. ^ Miller RR, Escobar M (August 2001). “Contrasting acquisition-focused and performance-focused models of acquired behavior”. Current Directions in Psychological Science10 (4): 141–5. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00135S2CID 7159340.
  24. ^ Gallistel CR, Gibbon J (April 2000). “Time, rate, and conditioning” (PDF). Psychological Review107 (2): 289–344. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.407.1802doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.289PMID 10789198Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-05-05. Retrieved 2021-08-30.
  25. ^ Gallistel R, Gibbon J (2002). The Symbolic Foundations of Conditioned Behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  26. ^ Golkar A, Bellander M, Öhman A (February 2013). “Temporal properties of fear extinction–does time matter?”. Behavioral Neuroscience127 (1): 59–69. doi:10.1037/a0030892PMID 23231494.
  27. ^ Wagner AR (1981). “SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior.”. In Spear NE, Miller RR (eds.). Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 5–47. ISBN 978-1-317-75770-2.
  28. ^ Steinmetz JE (2010). “Neural Basis of Classical Conditioning”Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience. Academic Press. pp. 313–319. ISBN 9780080453965Archived from the original on 2021-08-30. Retrieved 2018-10-01.
  29. ^ Fanselow MS, Poulos AM (February 2005). “The neuroscience of mammalian associative learning”. Annual Review of Psychology56 (1): 207–34. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070213PMID 15709934.
  30. ^ Markram H, Gerstner W, Sjöström PJ (2011). “A history of spike-timing-dependent plasticity”Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience3: 4. doi:10.3389/fnsyn.2011.00004PMC 3187646PMID 22007168.
  31. Jump up to:a b c Kearney CA (January 2011). Abnormal Psychology and Life: A Dimensional Approach.
  32. ^ McGee DL (2006). “Behavior Modification”. Wellness.com, Inc. Archived from the original on 24 March 2012. Retrieved 14 February 2012.
  33. ^ Carlson NR (2010). Psychology: The Science of Behaviour. New Jersey, United States: Pearson Education Inc. pp. 599–604ISBN 978-0-205-64524-4.
  34. ^ Carlson NR (2010). Psychology: The Science of Behaviour. New Jersey, United States: Pearson Education Inc. pp. 198–203ISBN 978-0-205-64524-4.
  35. ^ Cartoni E, Puglisi-Allegra S, Baldassarre G (November 2013). “The three principles of action: a Pavlovian-instrumental transfer hypothesis”Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience7: 153. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00153PMC 3832805PMID 24312025.
  36. ^ Geurts DE, Huys QJ, den Ouden HE, Cools R (September 2013). “Aversive Pavlovian control of instrumental behavior in humans” (PDF). Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience25 (9): 1428–41. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00425PMID 23691985S2CID 6453291Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-05-01. Retrieved 2019-01-06.
  37. ^ Cartoni E, Balleine B, Baldassarre G (December 2016). “Appetitive Pavlovian-instrumental Transfer: A review”Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews71: 829–848. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.020PMID 27693227This paper reviews one of the experimental paradigms used to study the effects of cues, the Pavlovian to Instrumental Transfer paradigm. In this paradigm, cues associated with rewards through Pavlovian conditioning alter motivation and choice of instrumental actions. … Predictive cues are an important part of our life that continuously influence and guide our actions. Hearing the sound of a horn makes us stop before we attempt to cross the street. Seeing an advertisement for fast food might make us hungry and lead us to seek out a specific type and source of food. In general, cues can both prompt us towards or stop us from engaging in a certain course of action. They can be adaptive (saving our life in crossing the street) or maladaptive, leading to suboptimal choices, e.g. making us eat when we are not really hungry (Colagiuri and Lovibond, 2015). In extreme cases they can even play a part in pathologies such as in addiction, where drug associated cues produce craving and provoke relapse (Belin et al., 2009).
  38. ^ Berridge KC (April 2012). “From prediction error to incentive salience: mesolimbic computation of reward motivation”The European Journal of Neuroscience35 (7): 1124–43. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.07990.xPMC 3325516PMID 22487042Incentive salience or ‘wanting’ is a specific form of Pavlovian-related motivation for rewards mediated by mesocorticolimbic brain systems …Incentive salience integrates two separate input factors: (1) current physiological neurobiological state; (2) previously learned associations about the reward cue, or Pavlovian CS …
    Cue-triggered ‘wanting’ for the UCS
    A brief CS encounter (or brief UCS encounter) often primes a pulse of elevated motivation to obtain and consume more reward UCS. This is a signature feature of incentive salience. In daily life, the smell of food may make you suddenly feel hungry, when you hadn’t felt that way a minute before. In animal neuroscience experiments, a CS for reward may trigger a more frenzied pulse of increased instrumental efforts to obtain that associated UCS reward in situations that purify the measurement of incentive salience, such as in Pavlovian-Instrumental Transfer (PIT) experiments … Similarly, including a CS can often spur increased consumption of a reward UCS by rats or people, compared to consumption of the same UCS when CSs are absent … Thus Pavlovian cues can elicit pulses of increased motivation to consume their UCS reward, whetting and intensifying the appetite. However, the motivation power is never simply in the cues themselves or their associations, since cue-triggered motivation can be easily modulated and reversed by drugs, hungers, satieties, etc., as discussed below.

Further reading[edit]

Library resources about
Classical conditioning
Resources in your libraryResources in other libraries
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Classical conditioning.

ORGANIZATIONS FROM 34 STATES AND 29 COUNTRIES JOIN AMICUS BRIEF TO U.S. SUPREME COURT

ALASKA
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
IOWA
KENTUCKY
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
2
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
OHIO
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN

ARGENTINA
AUSTRALIA
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
CANADA
CHILE
DENMARK
FRANCE
GERMANY
IRELAND
ISRAEL
JAPAN
MEXICO
MONACO
NETHERLANDS
NEW ZEALAND
NORWAY
PANAMA
3
PERU
PHILIPPINES
PORTUGAL
ROMANIA
SLOVAKIA
SOUTH AFRICA
SPAIN
SWEDEN
SWITZERLAND
UNITED KINGDOM


ALL nations are using weather weapons on their societies along with massive surveillance and deadly, unsurvivable levels of wireless frequencies.   MIND CONTROLLING with INVISIBLE FREQUENCIES is WAR Don’t forget the intentional releases from Nuclear Plants of GAMMA RADIATION upon the world, too. On the other hand, when looking at the Czech Republic, are we better than China?

https://mailchi.mp/arccopy/prison02?e=2c8f76afe2

My first accounter with the subject of directed energy weapons back in Sydney

I have a deep trust in the goodness of man so I truly believe that in the real top militaries of China, Russia, and the US there are knowledgeable and responsible human beings, who understand the seriousness of the present situation. But they somehow fail to do anything sensible about it and the level of misinformation is so overwhelming that they have lost almost all credibility. The following article was so shocking for me when I read it for the first time, that I had to go and ask my friend “is all this for real???? Is it possible to rape or torture a person at the distance???? She said no. My journey had just started.

What Chemtrails Really Are
By Carolyn Williams Palit
“The United States does not torture.” –President George W. Bush

We are dealing with Star Wars. It involves the combination of chemtrails for creating an atmosphere that will support electromagnetic waves, ground-based, electromagnetic field oscillators called gyrotrons, and ionospheric heaters. Particulates make directed energy weapons work better. It has to do with “steady state” and particle density for plasma beam propagation.

They spray barium powders and let it photo-ionize from the ultraviolet light of the sun. Then, they make an aluminum-plasma generated by “zapping” the metal cations that are in the spray with either electromagnetics from HAARP, the gyrotron system on the ground [Ground Wave Emergency Network], or space-based lasers. The barium makes the aluminum-plasma more particulate dense. This means they can make a denser plasma than they normally could from just ionizing the atmosphere or the air.

More density [more particles] means that these particles which are colliding into each other will become more charged because there are more of them present to collide. What are they ultimately trying to do up there — is create charged-particle, plasma beam weapons.

Chemtrails are the medium – GWEN pulse radars, the various HAARPs, and space-based lasers are the method, or more simply:

Chemtrails are the medium — directed energy is the method.

Spray and Zap.

This system appears to be in Russia, Canada, the United States, and all of Europe. Exotic weapons can be mobile, stationary, land-based, aerial, or satellite.

It is an offensive and defensive system against EM attacks and missiles. It uses ionospheric particle shells as defense mechanisms [like a bug-zapper shell]* against missiles and EM attacks. That means they spray and then pump up the spray with electromagnetics. When these shells are created using the oscillating, electromagnetic, gyrotron stations, it “excludes” and displaces the background magnetic field. These shells can be layered one above another in a canopy fashion for extra protection from missiles. The chemtrail sprays have various elements in them like carbon which can used to absorb microwaves. Some of these sprays have metal flakes in them that make aerial craft invisible to radar. Spoofer sprays. Sprays like these can be used to create colorful, magnetized plasmas to cloak fighter jets.

There are satellite weapons involved. Activists are using meters and are getting readings of microwaves, x-rays, and some other kind of emission that they are not sure of, maybe a low-intensity laser.

They are also photographing gas plasma generation due to the heating of chemtrails by electromagnetics. The technical names for vertical and horizontal plasma columns are columnar focal lenses and horizontal drift plasma antennas. Various sizes of gas plasma orbs are associated with this technology. These orbs can be used as transmitters and receivers because they have great, refractory, and optical properties. They also are capable of transmitting digital or analog sound. Barium, in fact, is very refractive — more refractive than glass.

What does that mean? Someone or someones are very involved in unconstitutional, domestic spying and the entrained plasma orbs carried on electromagnetic beams can be used for mind control programming. The satellites can be programmed to track and monitor various frequencies on different parts of your body. These electromagnetic beams carrying the gas plasma orbs stick due to magnetic polarity and frequency mapping and tracking to people’s eyes, ears, temples, and private parts. A beam with entrained orbs carries pictures in each orb just like the different frames in a movie. It is a particle beam that is also a frequency weapon.

The satellites download holographic mind control movies, pictures, sounds, and sensations to people through this technology. The Air Force has stated in “Air Force 2025” that their goal is to develop virtual and augmented reality mind control. Depending on how the computer is programmed or depending on the mood or intent of the person interfacing with the technology, you can be probed, bothered, gaslighted, frightened, manipulated, electronically raped, or tortured. It scans your brain frequencies and deciphers your thoughts. The satellites track you by mapping your bioenergetic signature [body biometrics] and constantly scanning an area to find you.

We are the lab rats for this technology and something is very wrong in the military or intelligence branches somewhere. Because developmental projects in government and military are often so compartmentalized, I suppose someone could be using and developing this technology secretly and without authorization. Then again, behavioral and mind control programs were an authorized policy under MKULTRA. Our country has a history of experimenting on its citizens. We are talking about satellite-charged-particle frequency weapons attacking a person 24 hours a day. Psychotronic weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction by the U.N.

“HAARPs” can create earthquakes and can also x-ray the earth to find underground military bases, gold, or oil reserves. These ionospheric heaters can also operate as an over-the-horizon or under-the-ocean communications system. This system can control the weather or create disasters. Taken together with the aurora keyhole through-your-roof satellite surveillance system, Echelon electronic computer/phone sweeps, plasma-cloaked DOD Drug War helicopters and stealths, implants, and cameras on the street, it constitutes one, big global and space control grid.

These weapons involve beams. Two beams overlapped will couple into a particle-ion beam that will bounce off of a remote target and send a holographic image back to the satellite for remote spying operations. When you cross two strong beams, you can supposedly* create scalar energies. These energies can be used as untraceable weapons for nuclear size explosions or for defense. These crossed-energies can be used to cause a person’s physical electrical system to fail or with a lower frequency, administer a kind of remote electro-shock. Visualize touching a positive and negative electric cable to each other on top of your head. Scalar energies can be utilized in hand-held military guns and on tanks. They can dud-out electronics or cause large, electrical blackouts. Scalar energies are practically impossible to shield against. You need lead, ceramics, and a deep underground facility to not be affected by these weapons. Or, you need to be up and above the field of battle.

People who are working on these issues hear tones and hums. If you hear persistent tones and static; have body vibrations, burning sensations, “bangs” to the head, neurological damage, or immune system damage; are hearing electronic voices or hearing the sound of a plasma; suffering from pains deep in your organs or constant headaches, or experiencing other anomalous activity then you may be being targeted by directed energy, mind control weapons. These weapons could be on helicopters, jets, stealth fighters, or satellites. Directed energy beams and electromagnetic waves can be sent to you via hand-held devices or piggy-backed in on cell phones and satellite towers.

Is it possible that someone(s) are very afraid of coming famines and riots due to the ongoing, man-induced failure of the ecological system, and they are saturating the earth with chemtrails for large-scale, gas plasma mind control? Is this the last grasp for the world’s resources? Or, are they just controlling freaks and money mongers? Someone would like to get to that oil under the melting [due to chemtrail-trapped EM heat] Artic. And, I guess the Third World is not a part of this system. I don’t think that the developed nations are going to let them in on this either.

Any country that joins this NATO system will become mind-controlled and diseased due to the associated, intense, oscillating, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic soup, and the poisonous, toxic chemtrails. Our DNA will break. We risk the earth’s spin and tilt becoming messed up due to mucking around with the magnetic fields through this military technology. Maybe, it is already messed up.

It constitutes U.S. global domination via NATO and the erosion of civil rights. According to Charlotte Iserbyt and Al Martin, there are ex-KGB and ex-STASI advising our new Office of Total Information Awareness. They are the ones creating our new internal passports [national ID]. . Who exactly is flying those plasma-cloaked crafts that are seen all over this country and mistaken for UFOs by people who do not know about this aerial deception technology? Obviously, we have another “Project Paperclip” in the making.

The elitist corporate government is going to hold the rest of us hostage with directed energy weapons in space, if the Policy for a New American Century group – PNAC – along with directed energy attacks against any country or citizen that they decide they do not like. These weapons can create climate war, weather war, mind war, cyberwar, disease war, disaster war, and undetectable war. Taken together they can create economic war.

If this system is not stopped, it will kill billions due to aluminum and barium poisoning. It will kill billions due to crop failures and worldwide famine. It will cause heart attacks, strokes, and cancers. It will cause stillbirths, miscarriages, and infertility. The chemtrail sprays often have fungi, bacteria, viruses, desiccated red blood cells, crystalline substances, carbon, metal cations, lithium, other chemicals, heavy metals, and God knows what – probably smart dust, or nanocrap. Years of biowarfare testing on the American public is no big secret anymore. Spraying germs in the sky where they mutate due to the ultra-violet light — brilliant plan, my man. Are we acceptable losses or is this by design?

I know that many of the major players have big investments in pharmaceutical companies, GM seeds [seeds that can grow in an electromagnetic soup], weapons and directed energy development contracts, oil contracts, genetic research, and mind control research. Some of these people have had a familial history of financial and policy support for population control, eugenics, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pinochet, Hussein, and various other dictators. Some of the major players were the masterminds of the death squads in Central and South America. They stand to make a big profit on our death and disease. Just take a look at Rumsfield and Tamiflu.

I assume that they know the dangers of this system and that they take care to stay in their shielded, air-filtered offices, homes, basements, and cars. I assume they take chelating substances to remove the barium and aluminum from their bodies and minds. If not, then they really do not understand the far-ranging implications of this destructive system. Congress may not understand just what a terrible weapons system and control grid they are funding.

As I understand it, Tesla towers attached to deep-earth, free-energy taps are to be created over the 10-12 magnetic poles and the GWEN system phased out. Has this already been done? This should allow total control of the earth through giant, Tesla death ray guns. This natural, electromagnetic earth was not meant to be an unnatural dynamo to power man’s weapons or his utility companies.

Over-unity systems [Tesla devices]* are as of yet, another unexplored and probably not understood man-made energy. We should be very suspicious of free energy. As we can see, the forms of man-made energy that have been created and used in the past have not been good for this planet. Maybe it is time to reconsider the options available to us through the development of wind, solar, and water power. We need worldwide, different, more holistic, renewable, energy programs.

Is there any good news? Yes. There has been tons of particulate dumping through the spray operations for 8 years over the Americas, Europe, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, and from what I can find out, over Russia. And, what goes around blows around, right? So, these substances are probably actually global. It sure makes a ton of sense to spray poisonous elements in 24 NATO countries and let the substances be carried around the earth on the jet streams to poison yourself, your enemies, and all neutral and non-combatant countries. Talk about making more enemies.

The water, air, and soil of all of these countries is so saturated with metal cations that these weapons freaks should be able to zap and mind f–k each other quite well now and as often as they wish. Once they have clobbered each other with light-saber beams for a few years and razed and scorched sections of the earth, they may start to realize that this foreign policy will lead to a defective human race and a rotten economy.

Do you think they will have knocked some sense into each other by then and will decide that non-proliferation and arms reduction is the more civilized and mature direction to take in world affairs? I doubt it, cause only idiots would have developed horrific, planet-killer weapons like these. But, I’ll bet the rest of the planet will finally rise up and tell these juvenile delinquents to quit playing with those rayguns right this second.

After further thought on Bearden + — a big over-unity and free energy proponent of Tesla technology that makes energy off of boiling the ionosphere or stealing electricity from the misnamed “vacuum” called Life, I have decided that Bearden is telling us some, if not most, of the truth. Same for Eastlund.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261643471_Gyrotron_Technology
G.I.G BT the chapter on Man’s extraction of Electricity from Nature and its destruction during its use.

Criminal charges to be filed against WHO for mass murder in 2009

Now we have 2021, with the situation far worse than in 2009 because then people were still using some of their own intelligence before giving it over to their smarties. Perhaps some refreshment of the memory could help to end it as it was done in 2009?

Hallo Patrick,

I heard WHO is gearing up to declare a swine flu pandemic and just notified Dr Margaret Chan, the Director General of WHO, that I intend to file criminal charges for conspiracy to commit mass murder against her and President Obama in Austria on Monday.

An usual step but it’s an unusual situation! Please see email below outlining the case I intend to bring against Dr Chan. It expands on the criminal charges I filed concerning the bird flu virus earlier this month.

After all, all WHO has do is distribute surgical masks if there is a real pandemic virus threat. There is absolutely no justification on public health grounds for a mass forced vaccination programme.

I hope more people, especially Americans living in Europe, will file criminal charges and class action lawsuits for damages in case WHO declares a pandemic resulting in mass death and economic havoc. We need to bombard them with charges and lawsuits!

If you could post this up on your website to generate awareness, I’d be grateful. Best, Jane

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: jane burgermeister <jmburgermeister@gmail.com>

Date: Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Subject: Criminal Charges to be filed against Dr M Chan and WHO for mass murder

To: chanm@who.int, garciaj@who.int, donaldsonl@who.int

Cc: guterres@unhcr.org, wfpinfo@wfp.org, hq@iom.int, iomsl@sltnet.lk, holmes@un.org, mediainfo@un.org, angela.kane@un.org, garwoodp@who.int, abrahamt@who.int, chaibf@who.int, segotis@who.int, hartlg@who.int, hbhatiasevia@who.int

Dear Dr Margaret Chan,

I am sending this email to inform you that I intend to file criminal charges on Monday Aril 27th against you as well as other employees in the WHO and allied organisations, for your role in exposing the populations of the world to the risk of a pandemic virus that could kill billions of people using laws to fight international racketeering influenced organised crime as well as the UN convention for the prevention and punishment of genocide.

As a public servant employed in an international organisation, the Director-General of the World Health Organisation based in Geneva, you have the duty as part of your official capacity to act at all times in such a way as to safeguard the health of the world’s population, specifically to prevent the “misuse” of pandemic declaration by organisations, companies, government bodies or other entities intent on unleashing a pandemic virus and then carrying through a mass vaccination programme with contaminated material in order to gain political and economic advantages from mass murder.

Media reports indicate that your organisation is abusing its administrative structures, personnel and services to play up the danger of the swine flu virus to justify just such a mass vaccination programme with an untried and untested vaccine.

The WHO has ordered all WHO officers to man the “Pandemic Control Room” 24/7 for the 1st time in response to the swine flu cases reported in the media yesterday, and is about to declare a “pandemic”.

The WHO “Pandemic Control Room” is designed to map and track the spread of a pandemic virus, and is thus equipped with super-computers tied to all U.N. member government’s security forces. 

This “control room” is where any declarations of “pandemic” will originate from, and I would be grateful if you could list the names of the people working in that control room. 

When WHO sends such a “declaration” to President Obama, FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security “Pandemic Task Forces” will be deployed according to my information.

Each State Governor will be notified that the provisions of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) will be implemented.  This means that

all Americans must consent to mass vaccinations, or be guilty of a FELONY crime.

Would it not, Dr Chan, be better just to ask people who refuse to wear a surgical mask if there is, indeed, a real danger of a pandemic? Why force through a vaccination on pain of being shot?

The legal situation is that anyone who refuses the vaccine, and/or resists forced relocation to a prepared “quarantine compound”, can “legally” be shot and killed. (Justified “deadly force”.)   See http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Informed/RevisedModelState.html

You must be aware of this facts.

This is such a drastic scenario that you in your capacity as a public servant must have real evidence of a dire threat to the population and be prove beyond a doubt that your actions will address that threat and that there is a good reason why you don’t simply recommend people were surgical masks if they don’t want to take the vaccination.

From media reports, it seems that the new strain of swine flu is a synthetic structural recombinant, it contains genes from birds, humans, and pigs from many different continents. It therefore is reasonable to assume it came out of a laboratory, specifically a bioweapons laboratory.

Wouldn’t the WHO be better advised to investigate the lab that manufactured and released this synthetic virus and prosecute them or else recommend people wear surgical masks rather than declare a mass vaccination programme?

According to a report in Fox News below, your assessment of the dangers of this swine flu is by far the most pessimistic with the CDC recommending just customary precautions. How do you explain that?

How do explain why you have identified so many fatalities already while the Mexican government has confirmed only 16 from this new flu strain? What is the scientific basis for your identification? Are you using a correct procedure? Can you prove it in court that you are using the correct procedure and that simply recommending people wear surgical masks is not adequate.

Also, I note that the new strain of the swine flu has appeared in Mexico and America simultaneously, and under “mysterious circumstances” also indicating a  deliberate, planned and coordinated release of the synthetic laboratory engineered viruses. Shouldn’t you be investigating such a “mysterious” incident? Have you declared an investigation? Who are you investigating? Please give details?

WHO is obliged to exhaust all other avenues before declaring a pandemic and initiating a mass vaccination programme because you must — as part of your duties to be informed as the holder of such an office — know that the 1976 swine flu mass vaccination programme  was abandoned by the US government because of the mounting evidence that the risk to the general public was greater from the vaccination programme than from the actual swine flu.

It is your especial duty, given this precedent in 1976, to make sure no mass vaccination programme is implemented unless that causes injury to the general public is implemented under your auspices by your declaring a pandemic prematurely and without having adequate safeguards in place to ensure the high quality and safety of any vaccine material.

You also need to show that recommending surgical masks is not a viable alternative approach in dealing with any so-called pandemic.

I contend that you are not fulfilling your duty to a) provide accurate information to the public about the threats posed to them by the swine flu and b) to ensure you do not declare a pandemic prematurely as a pretext to rush through a contaminated or faulty vaccine material that could result in death or injury to people as happened in 1976.

As a public servant whose body is currently investigation the involvement of Baxter and Avir in the release of bird flu pandemic material in Austria, you are obliged to be fully aware also of the details of this case and the role that a pharmaceutical company, namely Baxter, played in almost triggering a pandemic.

You might also be aware of the criminal charges I filed against Baxter and other bodies, including the WHO, in respect of this case on April 8th with the Vienna City Prosecutor since they are available on a blog.

The WHO reference center provided Baxter with the particularly lethal wild type bird flu virus that ended up contaminating ordinary human flu material and being distributed to 16 laboratories in Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany under a false label, and so nearly sparking a bird flu pandemic this winter in the estimation of experts and the media.

Virus mix-up by lab could have resulted in pandemic

6 Mar 2009, 0002 hrs IST, AGENCIES

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4230882.cms

In the Baxter case of this winter, there is therefore a clear, well documented link between WHO and the release of pandemic bird flu material in Europe this winter.

The WHO is, according to reports, conducting an investigation into Baxter and Avir’s role in producing and distributing this material, but has so far not made public the results of its investigation or made recommendations in respect of stricter biosecurity rules for laboratories working with the highly pathogenic bird flu virus. Why not?

I contend your failure to conduct a full and detailed investigation into this incident, and to make those findings public or to make clear recommendations as to how to prevent a repeat of this incident is not merely a failure to perform your duty as a public servant but evidence of your role in covering up the real origin of the pandemic virus, specifically, in WHO’s own reference center.

In my criminal charges filed with the Vienna City Prosecutor on April 8th, 2009, I alleged that Baxter deliberately tried to trigger a pandemic with the aim of profiting from it by sealing in advance lucrative contracts to supply a vaccination for the bird flu with the Austrian Health Ministry in 2006, specifically the contract sealed with Austrian Health Minister Maria Rauch-Kallat involved supplying 16 million vaccine shots in the event that WHO declared a bird flu pandemic.

In Germany, a vaccination bird flu shot is mandatory ensuring more profits for pharmaceutical companies, and adding to the motivation for companies to trigger a pandemic because they will profit from it, and to take steps to exercise undue influence on members of WHO to declare a pandemic without adequate reason.

Referring to laws on racketeering influenced crime organisations, I argued that high offices in organisations such as the WHO have been annexed by criminal elements who are actually helping to further a criminal agenda of committing murder with the motive of robbery – albeit using covert bioweapons programmes.

As a result of the actions of Baxter, at least 35 people in Austria and in the Czech Republic were given preventative treatment against bird flu and the ordinary human flu in hospital. This underlines that in the professional opinion of the medical personnel there was a real, concrete and specific danger from Baxter and WHO’s contaminated material to the health of those individuals, such that administering medicines was considered necessary. I understand the Czech laboratory staff who came into contact with Baxter’s contaminated and who first reported it on February 6th material were placed in quarantine.

Given the fact that this incident happened only a few weeks ago and your organisation is involved in it in as far as it supplied a) a lethal strain of the bird flu virus and b) is investigating the incident, it is your duty to be aware of all details, allegations of criminal intent, evidence for those allegations and refutations of those allegations because there are so many parallels with this new “swine flu” case, also involving a synthetic structure that has mysteriously appeared in two places simultaneously.

In particular, you are obliged to be informed about the fact that Baxter uses biosafety level 3 regulations when handling the highly pathogenic bird flu virus that WHO sent the company from its reference center, and that under these biosafety 3 regulations an accidental contamination of the deadly bird flu virus strain you sent you’re your reference center to Baxter with a human flu is virtually impossible.

You must also be aware of the research of Jeffery K. Taubenberger of the  Department of Molecular Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology into the bird flu virus and specifically his reconstruction of the deadly strain of the bird flu virus from the genetic material retrieved from victims of the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1919.

Although many researchers and NGOs issued warnings that resurrecting this lethal virus was dangerous to the public, the WHO has been one of the biggest supporters of continuing research into this bioengineered virus and into its “antidotes” spending millions of tax payers dollars on research and prevention programmes.

You must be aware that it was only last summer that scientists published in scientific journals evidence that showed that the bird flu can mix with the human flu virus to produce a pandemic virus in a laboratory situation.

You must also be aware of the ongoing criminal investigation in Poland into the deaths of homeless people after they were given a bird flu trial vaccination by doctors and nurses last summer.

There is therefore, I argue, ample evidence within the public domain to show that pharmaceutical companies and government organisations and other agents are knowingly and intentionally creating pandemic virus material and, as we saw in Austria, this winter unleashing it on the population, and trying to cover up their involvement.

Should you and WHO now declare a pandemic for the swine flu in the USA, and should people die as a direct result of the vaccination programme you initiate, or should there be significant evidence of harm or injury to people as a direct result of the mass vaccination programme you initiate, as happened in 1976, you could find yourself charged not with a conspiracy to mass murder but with mass murder itself.

Furthermore, the WHO, as far as I am informed, has published a study outlining the economic impact of a pandemic virus.

If you as part of your office help criminal organisations who have annexed high offices of state to carry out their crimes, to ignite and then declare a pandemic, that disrupts the economy, then you, other leading individuals working for WHO in an official capacity and WHO, as an organisation, could also liable not only for criminal charges but also for damages flowing from class action lawsuits filed not just by citizens of American but by citizens or company around the world that see their revenues decline as a direct result of the pandemic being unleashed, and the subsequent havoc to the economy.

If there is a pandemic declaration by WHO and mass deaths from the vaccination programme, I foresee a situation were you and the WHO could find thousands of people are filing criminal charges but also class action law suits.

I contend there is evidence from the pattern of your activities concerning the Baxter case that you, under the color of your office while purporting to act in an official capacity, are actually acting on behalf of hidden crime interests intent on igniting a pandemic and misusing a declaration of a pandemic to gain political and financial advantages, a group which I designate as the Illuminati crime gang.

The declaration of a pandemic by WHO has direct political and financial and other advantages to elements in the US government, especially elements I argue belong to the Illuminati/New World Order/CIA/Freemason crime gang, who are now being considered for investigation for sanctioning torture in Guantanamo in violation of the US and international law, specifically Donald Rumsfeld (who has financial connections with an anti bird flu Tamiflu producer), Richard Cheney and Alberto Gonzales.

The imposition of martial law will help anyone suspected of violating laws to torture to avoid prosecution in the United States, although a case is pending in Spain.

I contend that you are abusing your office as Director General of WHO, knowingly and intentionally, to help the Illuminati achieve their political and financial goals.

I contend there is already today, Saturday, evidence that you are intentionally manipulating information on the swine flu outbreak that allegedly started yesterday to play up the danger of a pandemic in order to justify the implementation of a mass vaccination programme while ignoring and suppressing information that indicates this response is not proportionate to the risk.

Finally, I ask you to please provide me by Monday 10am April 27th Central European Time in the form of email attachments, links, legal memos etc the following documentation so that I can review it before submitting fresh criminal charges related to this matter.

Specifically, I ask you to send me or to instruct one of your personnel to send me

1)        the studies you have to date on the swine flu vaccination you intend to inoculate the US population with, with clear evidence from respected scientific sources such as clinical trials reported in peer reviewed scientific journals as to their unequivocal safety:

2)        information as to the genetic sequence of the swine flu strain detected by WHO in victims of the “swine flu” outbreak in Mexico and America so far;

3)        information as to which companies WHO has contracted to provide a swine flu vaccination and under what terms and conditions, including quality assurance, financial terms and conditions;

4)        a detailed account of all the safety procedures and independent reviews that WHO has put into place for ensuring any vaccination meets recognised standards of safety and quality;

5)         documents proving that you have the legal authority in the case of a swine flu to declare a pandemic and enforce mass vaccinations for the swine flu on the population in the form of legal memos, rulings etc.

Please send all the above documents as email attachments.

If you miss the Monday deadline, I will argue in my submission to the court that you do not have the documents.

I ask you to make sure you keep a copy of the email to me so that you can prove to a court that you a) had all the requisite authority and documents and b) that you had them at hand and available for public and legal scrutiny at short notice in an emergency situation as is your obligation as a public servant.

I will argue that if you have ordered your WHO officers to man the pandemic control room 24/7 from Friday April 24, as reported in the media, then you have an extra obligation to be on duty yourself this weekend and your failure to be on duty in the event of an emergency you have declared is a violation of the rules of conduct of your office. 

As you have sufficient personnel at hand, I will argue, you can delegate this job of collecting the documents and materials I request in 1)-5) to a member of your staff and still be available to follow the “pandemic” which you claim is occurring.

If you send me these documents after the Monday deadline, please make sure to keep a copy of the email so that you can prove in a court of law that you had the necessary authority, and documents proving you had that authority at hand, and could present them speedily as is required of a public servant in such an “emergency”.

In case you wish to study the criminal charges I have filed on April 8th and wish to be able to better comprehend the legal basis for the criminal charges that I will file on Monday April the 27th, I attach a copy in German.

I can also suggest my blog where I have published the charges in an English translation, though only the first 20 pages or so have so far been translated.

birdflu666.wordpress.com

The introduction on the blog, however, also gives an outline of my evidence and arguments.

I am also copying in below two media reports that give substance to some of the allegations I make in this email, underlining relevant points, including the information indicating this new strain of a swine flu could be a bioweapon “mysteriously” released.

If you have any comments or would like to point out any facts you think are errors please get back to me as soon as possible. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Regards, Jane

 Two relevant reports one from yesterday from Fox News and one concerning the 1976 swine flu incident:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517737,00.html

Mexico City closed schools across the metropolis of 20 million Friday after at least 16 people died and more than 900 others fall ill from what health officials suspect is a new strain of swine flu. World health officials worried that it could mark the start of a flu pandemic.

The World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland said at least 57 have died in the outbreak, although it wasn’t yet clear if this larger number of deaths was due to swine flu.

“We are very, very concerned,” said Thomas Abraham, a spokesman for the agency. “We have what appears to be a novel virus and it has spread from human to human.” If international spread is confirmed, that meets WHO’s criteria for raising the pandemic alert level, he added.

Abraham said WHO on Friday raised their internal alert system, allowing them to divert more money and personnel to dealing with the outbreak. “It’s all hands on deck at the moment.” Abraham said.

Mexico’s Health Secretary, Jose Cordova, said only 16 of the deaths have been confirmed to have been caused by the new strain, through testing at the government’s laboratories. Samples from 44 other people who died were still being tested. The health department put the total number of people sickened at around 943 nationwide.

Cordova said samples were sent to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, to determine whether it’s the same virus infecting seven people in Texas and California. As of now, tests show the flu is a “new, different strain … that originally came from pigs.”

“We certainly have 60 deaths that we can’t be sure are from the same virus, but it is probable,” Cordova told MVS radio in Mexico City.

Cordova described a chilling new strain that had killed only people among the normally less-vulnerable young and mid-adult age range. One possibility is that the most vulnerable segments of the population — infants and the aged — had been vaccinated against other strains, and that those vaccines may be providing some protection.

But Dr. Anne Schuchat of the CDC said “at this point, we do not have any confirmations of swine influenza in Mexico” of the kind that sickened seven California and Texas residents.

All seven U.S. victims recovered from a strain of the flu that combines pig, bird and human viruses in a way that researchers have not seen before.

Cordova also told MVS radio in Mexico City that Mexican health officials can’t be sure that the deaths “are from the same virus, but it is probable.”

Closing the schools kept 6.1 million students home from day care centers through high schools, and thousands more were affected as colleges and universities closed down. Parents scrambled to juggle work and family concerns due to what local media said was the first citywide schools closure since Mexico City’s devastating 1985 earthquake.

Lillian Molina and other teachers at the Montessori’s World preschool scrubbed down their empty classrooms with Clorox, soap and Lysol on Friday between fielding calls from worried parents. While the school has had no known cases among its students, Molina supported the government’s decision to shutter classes, especially in preschools.

“It’s great they are taking precautions,” she said. “I think it’s a really good idea.”

Authorities advised capital residents not to go to work if they felt ill, and to wear surgical masks if they had to move through crowds. A wider shutdown — perhaps including shutting down government offices — was being considered.

“It is very likely that classes will be suspended for several days,” Cordova said. “We will have to evaluate, and let’s hope this doesn’t happen, the need to restrict activity at workplaces.”

Still, U.S. health officials said it’s not yet a reason for alarm in the United States. The five in California and two in Texas have all recovered, and testing indicates some common antiviral medications seem to work against the virus.

Schuchat of the CDC said officials believe the new strain can spread human-to-human, which is unusual for a swine flu virus. The CDC is checking people who have been in contact with the seven confirmed U.S. cases, who all became ill between late March and mid-April.

The U.S. cases are a growing medical mystery because it’s unclear how they caught the virus. The CDC said none of the seven people were in contact with pigs, which is how people usually catch swine flu. And only a few were in contact with each other.

CDC officials described the virus as having a unique combination of gene segments not seen in people or pigs before. The bug contains human virus, avian virus from North America and pig viruses from North America, Europe and Asia.

Health officials have seen mixes of bird, pig and human virus before, but never such an intercontinental combination with more than one pig virus in the mix.

Scientists keep a close eye on flu viruses that emerge from pigs. The animals are considered particularly susceptible to both avian and human viruses and a likely place where the kind of genetic reassortment can take place that might lead to a new form of pandemic flu, said Dr. John Treanor, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Rochester Medical Center.

The virus may be something completely new, or it may have been around for a while but was only detected now because of improved lab testing and disease surveillance, CDC officials said.

The virus was first detected in two children in southern California — a 10-year-old boy in San Diego County and a 9-year-old girl in neighboring Imperial County.

It’s not known if anyone is getting sick from the virus right now, CDC officials said.

It’s also not known if the seasonal flu vaccine that Americans got last fall and early this year protects against this type of virus. People should wash their hands and take other customary precautions, CDC officials said.

THE SWINE FLU FIASCO

Archie Kalokerinos M.D.

In 1976 I was working in the far north of Australia amongst Aborigines. I observed, in one community of only a few hundred people, when they were given the flu vaccine (probably the Victorian strain but this detail does not really matter because nobody outside a few selected individuals really knows what is in any particular batch), six men died suddenly soon afterwards. They were not all ‘old’. One was in his early twenties. A few weeks later, in another community I found that individuals with heart or potential heart problems or diabetes were particularly likely to drop dead soon after being given the vaccine.

Obviously, there was a problem with some batches of the flu vaccine.

A few months later I was in America. President Ford had been told by his health advisers that there was going to be a huge epidemic of ‘swine flu’, that this could kill may thousands and the only way to prevent this catastrophe was to vaccinate the entire population of America – every man woman and child – with a specific vaccine.

So the vaccine was manufactured and the biggest vaccination campaign in history was begun. I was concerned because the vaccine could not be properly tested in a short period. None of the recipients would know anything about what they were being injected with and the chances were that many would die suddenly. Furthermore, it was extremely unlikely that an epidemic of swine flu would occur. So I spoke out. At first the newspapers got hold of what I said and headlined, ‘Australian Physician Call It Mass Murder’. Then I appeared on Kathy Crosby’s television program.

Watching that was a man in New York who did not like a gentleman named Gambino the Mafia boss. Gambino was about 70 years old and had a history of heart problems. It was a simple matter to get someone to persuade Gambino to have the flu shot and Gambino obliged by dropping dead. The newspapers got it right when they stated, ‘Mafia Flu Jab Conspiracy’.

People were dropping dead in the buildings where they received their shots. Others became paralyzed. The whole program ground to a halt.

President Ford decided to settle the matter quickly. In front of the whole world, on television, he rolled up his sleeve and ‘had his shot’. I claimed at the time that he was given a ‘dud’ shot and I am certain that this was actually done. Then President Ford invited all the news media men and women who were milling around to line up and have their shots. Only one man volunteered and he happened to be the White House press secretary. All the others refused the invitation.

There was not a single case of swine flu. There never was going to be an epidemic of swine flu. How was it that the world’s most powerful man with the world’s greatest department of health got it all so wrong? No one really knows the answer but what ever it is it is certainly not clean and tidy.

Furthermore, as far as I know I was the only practicing doctor who spoke out against it and warned about almost certain consequences. How was it that a doctor with only basic qualifications and not even the possessor of American citizenship stood out alone? There was at least one researcher, Anthony Morris, who did try to speak out but he was at the time censored and censored very hard.

This, therefore, is a classical example of how only one man got it right and everyone else got it wrong. This is an important consideration because, when the subject of vaccines is discussed the fact that the vast bulk of the medical establishment states that something is so it is not, in reality, necessarily so. If the establishment can get something so vast and important as the swine fiu vaccine campaign so wrong then it is logical to reason that they could also get a lot of other things wrong. At least it gives reasons to doubt what the establishment claims to be fact. If doctors and members of the general public considered this fewer errors would be made and fewer individuals would suffer unnecessarily.

A simplicity

Why is so difficult to understand just a few basic steps, that have to be taken by any sane leader of this planet before it “puffs and blows”?

1. Re-introduce THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE and HIS Objective Laws to humanity in a scientific way
2. Give the weather control back to NATURE where it belongs and you will have on your hands over a trillion dollars/year
3. Stop all psyops and physiological programs using the torturous directed energy weapons on human beings

Then we will manage the rest.