LarsonReport.htm

This powerful, more puzzling creative modification of the Goya's Sleep of reason - marked by the official Copyright - here is used as book cover's image,  and explained by the Designer: Andrzej (Andrew) Suda: should look just like many of the events described by the victims: they  exist, are bothersome, and we don’t know exactly WHY they are there but they are there.
About the Book This book not only documents the case of Andrzej Suda, it is also filled with documentation from the worlds most influential documented cases of psychological abuse, electronic harassment, organized stalking and mind control. Some cases include Rauni Leena Kilde MD., Dr. Reinhard Munzert, Kathy Sullivan, David Larson, and many others... Please support the truth with the purchase of our book. This will document many technologies and mind control weapons that have been kept hidden from the mainstream public. Over 600 pages of action packed TRUTH!

Recovered NIH Neural Prosthesis Devices  Results of a broken system with failing ethics and lack of oversight.

To view photos, hover your mouse pointer over the numbers below. All of the photos depict recovered neural prosthesis devices (devices used to record and stimulate motor and sensory biological activity) that were implanted by Gerald Loeb and Joseph Schulman of the Alfred E. Mann Foundation, USC, Second Sight LLC, and Quallion LLC, and funded by William Heetderks, Director of Extramural Research at the N.I.H. These devices were used for unethical and illeagal research performed without any IRB approval (IRB would not approve their requests) and was performed in a reckless and criminal manner. Images were captured during microscopy examination at magnification levels between 10x to 200x,. The small size of the devices can be deceptive when magnified, so in some images, a Lincoln penny is used for size reference and comparison. Extensive testing using MRi (1.5T and 3.0T), ultrasound, x-ray radiography and CT, show that the devices are non-ferrous and cannot be localized using currently available clinical radiology methods. The devices below were recovered following significant inflammation and infection which caused the tissue to begin rejecting the implants, which allowed medical personnel to localize and extract them - Media Contact: Dave Larson - (760) 371-7700 http://www.larsonmedia.net/nih.htm

• Newsgroups: sci.med.radiology
• From: "Lars121" <lars121@pacbell.net>
• Subject: MRI challenges...
• Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 15:32:46 GMT
• Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
• Reply-To: "Lars121" <none@none.com>

Radiology Details

Problem:
Devices are too small to be imaged using typical clinical MRI protocol
(1.5T).

Details:
The devices were developed during NIH/NINDS/NPP funded research to develop a
neural prosthesis, implantable devices that deliver pulsed charges of
electricity to the nervous system to restore vision, hearing or motor
function to disabled individuals. (FES = functional electrical stimulation)
These devices are small. The bulk of the semiconductor material (Silicon)
measures approximately 600µm x 600µm, and is roughly 200µm in thickness. The
complete devices are slightly larger (maybe about 1mm x 2mm, but still only
microns thick. A thin polymer or epoxy coating provides encapsulation and
biocompatibility. Because the devices are too small to image using
conventional means, university research personnel have relied on
histological examination after the animal is sacrificed so that microscopy
can be used to inspect for device condition, such as damage, surface
modification, and also inspect for device migration within the tissue.

History:
In this patient's case, the biocompatibility failed and caused numerous
subdermal infections which were temporarily treated with both topical and
oral antibiotics (Cleocin T®, Upjohn product), to minimize the infections,
but some infected tissue rejected the foreign material. Several of the
devices have been recovered , and one of them can be seen here.
  http://www.motocarrera.com/images/108_copy.jpg
 *Note the size when shown next to a coin for reference.

Remaining devices still exist and are a problem. Patient is highly motivated
to image their location and have them surgically removed.

My studies along with brief correspondence with leading researchers like
Petra Schmalbrock at OSU, and Alan Wilman at Univ. Alberta, Edmonton would
indicate that MRI would be best suited for imaging devices such as these,
but their small size makes this very challenging.

Patient underwent a series of images here locally which was done using
standard, typical protocol on a Signa 1.5T system w/ and w/o contrast. This
did not result in clear device images, but there were some artifacts.
Artifacts were consistent with and appeared similar to small cysts. It is my
opinion that the "cysts" may be the result of implanted devices which have
become infected. It is also my opinion that there are more sites which are
not infected, and thus, even more difficult to image. Histology studies
performed by Dr. John Rossiter in Canada show that these devices commonly
have a tough, fibrous layer of dead cells which have attached and surround
the device after a duration of being implanted, so this would play a role as
well.

Probably offering the greatest chance of successfully imaging these devices
are the new high-field systems. Philips has just released a new 3.0T system
in the U.S., and Bruker is offering something similar. There is a system at
OSU operating at 6.4T, and can currently image particle sizes, if I remember
correctly, to 250µm x 250µm x 1000µm, and they feel that with refinement,
this will soon be 250µmx3. Because 6.4T would not be available to this
patient unless permitted as part of approved research protocol. I am fairly
certain that one of the Philips/Bruker 3.0T systems may prove sufficient,
however I would welcome any insight qualified individuals have to offer. I
am also currently seeking to locate a facility or clinic that has one of the
3.0T systems in operation. Many thanks!

D.A. Larson
Encino, CA
lars121@pacbell.net

Lars121 <lars121@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Probably offering the greatest chance of successfully imaging these devices
> are the new high-field systems. Philips has just released a new 3.0T system
> in the U.S., and Bruker is offering something similar. There is a system at
> OSU operating at 6.4T, and can currently image particle sizes, if I remember
> correctly, to 250µm x 250µm x 1000µm, and they feel that with refinement,
> this will soon be 250µmx3. Because 6.4T would not be available to this
> patient unless permitted as part of approved research protocol. I am fairly
> certain that one of the Philips/Bruker 3.0T systems may prove sufficient,
> however I would welcome any insight qualified individuals have to offer. I
> am also currently seeking to locate a facility or clinic that has one of the
> 3.0T systems in operation. Many thanks!

If the devices contain any ferrous metal the 6.4T machines will localise
and remove them in one sitting...        

Jon

email:  austrobok@yahoo.co.uk