Showing posts sorted by date for query WUHAN. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query WUHAN. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, July 08, 2026

 

A review of the climatology features and mid- and high-latitude forcing of the equatorial electrojet



Beijing Zhongke Journal Publising Co. Ltd.

Schematic of the coupling mechanism between high-latitude SAPS and the equatorial electrojet 

image: 

A conceptual diagram demonstrating how subauroral polarization streams (SAPS, right panel) in the subauroral region generate electric fields that map along Earth's magnetic field lines, establishing a vertical polarization electric field in the equatorial ionosphere to modulate the daytime equatorial electrojet (EEJ, left panel).

view more 

Credit: Beijing Zhongke Journal Publishing Co. Ltd.






The equatorial electrojet (EEJ) is an intense, narrow eastward current system flowing within the daytime ionospheric E region (~105–110 km altitude) along the magnetic dip equator. As a crucial component of low-latitude space weather, understanding the EEJ's variability is essential for protecting global communication and navigation networks.  Led by researchers from Wuhan University, this newly published review presents a systematic synthesis of the spatial and temporal evolution of the EEJ. Under geophysically quiet conditions, the EEJ displays pronounced local time and longitudinal variations. Ground and satellite observations demonstrate that while solar photoionization controls its daytime peak near local noon, nonmigrating atmospheric tides originating from tropical tropospheric convection dictate its global wave-4 longitudinal structure.  Beyond quiet-time climatology, the review pays critical attention to the EEJ’s behavior under highly volatile space weather conditions. It delineates how energy inputs from mid- and high-latitude regions can rapidly alter or even reverse the electrojet's direction—creating a westward counter electrojet (CEJ). These perturbations are driven by two main processes: prompt penetration electric fields (PPEF) that map instantly from high latitudes during storms, and disturbance dynamo electric fields (DDEF) driven by long-lasting storm-time thermospheric winds. Other cross-regional factors, such as magnetospheric substorms, sudden changes in solar wind dynamic pressure, subauroral polarization streams (SAPS), and sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs), are shown to introduce stark asymmetries into low-latitude dynamics.  Furthermore, the review addresses the distinct pathways of solar radiative forcing, such as solar flares and eclipses, which modulate the EEJ through rapid adjustments in ionospheric conductivity and dynamo interactions.  While state-of-the-art physics-based numerical simulations (like the TIEGCM) and data-driven empirical frameworks have successfully reproduced basic seasonal and diurnal structures, their quantitative consistency remains limited during major space weather disturbances. The authors point out critical open issues, including the lack of unified frameworks for multi-factor coupling and the unmodeled nonlinear responses of the ionosphere. Resolving these bottlenecks will require the strategic integration of multi-platform coordinated observations, refined parameterizations of high-latitude boundaries, and data-driven machine learning models.

A review of the climatology features and mid- and high-latitude forcing of the equatorial electrojetcation

Beijing Zhongke Journal Publising Co. Ltd.

Schematic of the coupling mechanism between high-latitude SAPS and the equatorial electrojet 

image: 

A conceptual diagram demonstrating how subauroral polarization streams (SAPS, right panel) in the subauroral region generate electric fields that map along Earth's magnetic field lines, establishing a vertical polarization electric field in the equatorial ionosphere to modulate the daytime equatorial electrojet (EEJ, left panel).

view more 

Credit: Beijing Zhongke Journal Publishing Co. Ltd.






The equatorial electrojet (EEJ) is an intense, narrow eastward current system flowing within the daytime ionospheric E region (~105–110 km altitude) along the magnetic dip equator. As a crucial component of low-latitude space weather, understanding the EEJ's variability is essential for protecting global communication and navigation networks.  Led by researchers from Wuhan University, this newly published review presents a systematic synthesis of the spatial and temporal evolution of the EEJ. Under geophysically quiet conditions, the EEJ displays pronounced local time and longitudinal variations. Ground and satellite observations demonstrate that while solar photoionization controls its daytime peak near local noon, nonmigrating atmospheric tides originating from tropical tropospheric convection dictate its global wave-4 longitudinal structure.  Beyond quiet-time climatology, the review pays critical attention to the EEJ’s behavior under highly volatile space weather conditions. It delineates how energy inputs from mid- and high-latitude regions can rapidly alter or even reverse the electrojet's direction—creating a westward counter electrojet (CEJ). These perturbations are driven by two main processes: prompt penetration electric fields (PPEF) that map instantly from high latitudes during storms, and disturbance dynamo electric fields (DDEF) driven by long-lasting storm-time thermospheric winds. Other cross-regional factors, such as magnetospheric substorms, sudden changes in solar wind dynamic pressure, subauroral polarization streams (SAPS), and sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs), are shown to introduce stark asymmetries into low-latitude dynamics.  Furthermore, the review addresses the distinct pathways of solar radiative forcing, such as solar flares and eclipses, which modulate the EEJ through rapid adjustments in ionospheric conductivity and dynamo interactions.  While state-of-the-art physics-based numerical simulations (like the TIEGCM) and data-driven empirical frameworks have successfully reproduced basic seasonal and diurnal structures, their quantitative consistency remains limited during major space weather disturbances. The authors point out critical open issues, including the lack of unified frameworks for multi-factor coupling and the unmodeled nonlinear responses of the ionosphere. Resolving these bottlenecks will require the strategic integration of multi-platform coordinated observations, refined parameterizations of high-latitude boundaries, and data-driven machine learning models.

Tuesday, July 07, 2026

 

Study reveals how Myanmar’s deadly earthquake in 2025 tore open a 500-km rupture




KeAi Communications Co., Ltd.
Tectonic settings of the study area. 

image: 

Tectonic settings of the study area. 

view more 

Credit: Shuai Wang






On 28 March 2025, a magnitude 7.7 earthquake struck Myanmar near Mandalay, the country's second-largest city. It was the strongest seismic event recorded in Myanmar in more than a century, with estimates of 3,600 to 5,350 deaths and more than 11,000 injuries. Homes, transport networks and critical infrastructure were heavily damaged across both urban and rural areas, leaving communities facing years of recovery.

A new study published in Geodesy and Geodynamics provides a detailed look at the fault behavior behind this destructive event. Using satellite-based radar measurements and pixel offset tracking, researchers from China mapped how the ground moved during the earthquake. They found that the surface rupture extended about 500 km along the Sagaing Fault, one of Southeast Asia's most active fault lines. By building a fault slip model, they determined that the earthquake was dominated by horizontal movement, and most of the slip occurred within the upper 12 km of the crust, making it a relatively shallow rupture.

"Notably, the ground at the surface moved up to about 4.6 m. In many similar earthquakes, surface movement is smaller than movement at depth, a pattern known as "shallow slip deficit," says corresponding author Shuai Wang. "But the  2025 earthquake in Myanmar showed no obvious shallow slip deficit, meaning the surface experienced the full extent of the movement, making it a devastating disaster for lives and properties."

The researchers also found that part of the earthquake rupture traveled faster than seismic waves normally move through the crust, a phenomenon scientists call "supershear." A conclusion was reached this conclusion from three clues: very few aftershocks occurred in the fast-rupture zone; low moment-scaled radiated energy than similar earthquakes of the same size; and a simple linear fault geometry with minimal complexity.

"Supershear earthquakes are rare and highly destructive, but they tend to occur on faults that are straight, smooth, and structurally mature, which are the product of many earthquakes that have occurred over time," notes Wang. "Recognizing this behavior helps us better understand why some faults produce particularly damaging earthquakes.When a fault breaks at very high speed without obstruction, most of the energy goes into fracturing the rock rather than producing strong ground shaking."

The team's findings also suggest that the 2025 Myanmar earthquake may have released stress that had built up in a section of the Sagaing Fault where no large earthquake had occurred for a long time.

"Based on seismic moment budget analysis and geodetic slip deficit modeling, we estimated a 104–131‑year recurrence interval for Mw>7 earthquakes on the segments that ruptured in this event,  while the northern segment may have a shorter one," adds Wang.

The results could help scientists better understand how mature strike-slip faults behave during large earthquakes, and they provide useful information for assessing earthquake risks in Myanmar and across Southeast Asia.

###

Contact the author:

Shuai Wang (Wuhan Gravitation and Solid Earth Tides National Observation and Research Station; School of Environment Science and Spatial Informatics, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China)

shwanggeo@cumt.edu.cn

The publisher KeAi was established by Elsevier and China Science Publishing & Media Ltd to unfold quality research globally. In 2013, our focus shifted to open access publishing. We now proudly publish more than 200 world-class, open access, English language journals, spanning all scientific disciplines. Many of these are titles we publish in partnership with prestigious societies and academic institutions, such as the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC).

Friday, July 03, 2026

 

COVID-19 vaccine boosters may help protect against future animal coronaviruses



First exposure to SARS-CoV-2 ‘locks in’ our immune response



University of Cambridge





COVID-19 vaccine boosters not only protect against SARS‑CoV‑2 – the virus behind the most recent pandemic – but may also help protect against some future coronaviruses that risk spreading from animals to humans, Cambridge researchers have shown.

In a related study, the team has shown that an individual’s first exposure to SARS‑CoV‑2 ‘locks in’ their immune response, impeding their ability to respond to future variants, even when vaccinated.

When an individual is infected with a virus, the immune system produces antibodies that will recognise the virus if it re-enters the body and prevent infection taking hold again. Vaccination works on the same principle.

A team led by scientists in the Gupta and Rihn laboratories at the Cambridge Institute of Therapeutic Immunology & Infectious Disease (CITIID), University of Cambridge, asked whether the vaccines currently given against COVID-19 might also protect us against future coronaviruses that risk ‘spilling over’ from animals to humans.

In findings published today in the journal npj Vaccines, the team studied blood samples from older UK adults (average age around 69) who had received four COVID‑19 vaccine doses, including a recent bivalent booster that included both the original Wuhan strain and the Omicron variant.

They tested how well antibodies in these blood samples could neutralise different Omicron variants of SARS‑CoV‑2. They also tested the antibodies to see if they could neutralise the SARS‑CoV‑1 virus – responsible for the 2003 SARS outbreak – and a range of closely-related coronaviruses (known as ‘sarbecoviruses’) found in bats and pangolins, some of which are considered potential threats for future outbreaks.

As expected, antibodies worked less well against newer Omicron variants than against the original Wuhan strain, showing how the virus has evolved to escape the immune response. The antibodies were poor at neutralising SARS‑CoV‑1, which is genetically more distant.

Surprisingly, the antibodies were much better at neutralising two sarbecoviruses closely related to SARS‑CoV‑2 – one from bats and one from pangolins – than they were at neutralising the original Wuhan strain itself, even though these two viruses have never infected humans. Several of the bat and pangolin viruses tested have the ability to enter human cells and are genetically close enough to SARS‑CoV‑2 to raise concern about future spillovers.

Grace West from CITIID, the study’s joint first author, said: “We’d expect the COVID vaccine to offer protection against today’s variants, but we were surprised to find that it also provides protection against some animal coronaviruses with future pandemic potential.”

Rebecca Morse, also a joint first author from CITIID, said: “We may already have a head start when it comes to protecting against certain future outbreaks. Boosters could reduce both severity and spread if spillover were to occur, buying us vital time while we develop a more targeted vaccine. This will be particularly important for older and vulnerable populations, who are usually hardest hit in new pandemics.”

The researchers say their findings could inform next‑generation vaccine design. Vaccines that target parts of the coronavirus spike protein common to multiple viruses could protect against related viruses. The spike protein is a key element of the virus that the immune system recognises.

The research was funded by Wellcome and the Medical Research Council, with additional support from the Hong Kong Jockey Club, National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre and Addenbrooke’s Charitable Trust.

Why ‘first impressions’ matter when it comes to COVID-19 immunity

In a second study, Professor Ravindra Gupta and colleagues showed how your first encounter with COVID-19 – either through infection or vaccination – leaves a lasting immune ‘fingerprint’ that shapes how you respond to new variants for years, with important implications for vaccine design and pandemic preparedness.

Early on in the pandemic, relatively low reported case numbers in many African countries led to the perception that these countries had experienced limited exposure to SARS-CoV-2. But when the team analysed blood samples from unvaccinated adults in Nigeria in early 2023, they found that this was not the case – most individuals had already been exposed to the virus, often more than once, despite many never having been diagnosed or reporting illness.

This presented the team with a rare opportunity to understand how immunity builds up when infection comes first, rather than vaccination. Their findings are published in the journal iScience.

Using two independent cohorts sampled in 2023 while Omicron was circulating, the team found that immune responses were still dominated by earlier strains of the virus, even after subsequent infection with Omicron. This reflects a phenomenon known as ‘immune imprinting’, where the first exposure to the virus – whether through infection or vaccination – largely determines how the immune system will respond in future. Even after vaccination against or infection by subsequent variants, the immune system still responds as if the virus had not changed since that first exposure, increasing the chances that the virus will ‘escape’ the immune response.

First author Dr Adam Abdullahi from CITIID, Cambridge, and the Institute of Human Virology, Abuja, Nigeria, said: “The immune system doesn’t reset with each new variant. Instead, it builds on its first encounter, and that memory continues to influence how it responds to new variants. It’s like how, when we have a negative encounter with someone the first time we meet, this first impression can be hard to shake and informs how we deal with them each time we meet.”

To investigate this further, the team removed antibodies targeting earlier strains from the blood samples. With these antibodies removed, the blood was much less able to neutralise either the earlier variants of COVID-19 or Omicron, confirming that responses to newer variants were largely built on pre-existing immune memory.

Although vaccination increased overall antibody levels, it appeared to amplify existing immune memory, boosting responses shaped by earlier infections rather than generating strong new responses to variants such as Omicron. Even after further exposure to Omicron, antibody responses rarely became stronger against this variant than against the original virus.

In other words, immune responses, established during early infection, can persist over time, constraining the body’s ability to mount new responses to new variants, even after vaccination or re-exposure.

This suggests that in populations with high levels of prior infection, vaccine performance is partly determined by the sequence of exposures individuals have experienced, including whether infection occurred before vaccination, and which variants were encountered first. The findings may help explain why new variants keep spreading, even in populations with high prior exposure

Ravindra Gupta, The Hong Kong Jockey Club Professor of Global Health at CITIID, University of Cambridge, said: “Vaccines are still extremely important as they help reduce the severity of infection, so it’s important to get your boosters if you are vulnerable. But our findings help explain why we see different patterns of immunity across the world. The pandemic did not unfold uniformly, and our vaccination strategies need to reflect that reality.

“Early infection leaves a lasting imprint on the immune system, and in this context, we need to look at designing vaccines that work across different immune histories to help prepare for future pandemics.”

Professor Alash’le Abimiku from the Institute of Human Virology, Nigeria, joint lead author, said: “Understanding how populations were exposed to the virus is essential for designing effective vaccination strategies, particularly in settings where infection occurred before vaccine rollout. Future vaccines may need to be designed so they don’t just ‘replay’ the immune system’s past experiences, but instead actively train it to recognise and respond well to new variants.”

Imprinting may also explain why the COVID vaccine offers greater protection against some sarbecoviruses than it does later variants of SARS-CoV-2, such as Omicron, as reported in the npj Vaccines study.

The original vaccine, like an infection during early COVID-19 waves, caused imprinting of our antibodies against the Wuhan strain, and as the virus mutated over time, the immune system would be increasingly less likely to recognise it. However, some of the bat and pangolin coronaviruses have spike proteins that are more similar to that of the Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 than the spike proteins of Omicron and subsequent variants.

Professor Gupta, who leads The HKJC Global Health Institute, added: “This work was only possible because of close collaboration between Nigerian institutions and international partners, each bringing its own expertise. These partnerships are critical to ensuring that globally relevant evidence is generated from, and directly benefits, populations most affected by emerging infectious diseases.”

The research was funded by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Global Health Institute, Harding Distinguished Postgraduate Scholars Program and European Research Council, with additional support from the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.

Reference

  1. West, GE, & Morse, RB, et al. COVID-19 vaccination induces cross-neutralisation of sarbecoviruses related to SARS-CoV-2. npj Vaccines; 1 July 2026; DOI: 10.1038/s41541-026-01469-x
  2. Abdullahi, A,  Morse, RB, & Cheng, TKM, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection reveals imprinted 1 antibody responses in the absence of vaccination. iScience; 28 April 2026; DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2026.115910

Wednesday, July 01, 2026

Congressional MKUltra Hearings as MAGA PSYOP



 July 1, 2026

Rep. Anna Luna (R. Florida) kicks off the MKUltra hearing. Image courtesy House.gov.

As a scholar who spent decades using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and archives studying Cold War CIA operations, it was with great interest that I watched yesterday’s US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearings on “Mind Control and Accountability: Uncovering the Truth of the CIA’s MKULTRA Project.” Because my academic research focuses on the CIA’s use of funding fronts and various specific CIA operations, including its MKUltra program, I was surprised to learn of congressional interest in a program that was terminated over half a century ago.

UKUltra was the code name of a secret CIA program launched after US prisoners of war during the Korean War appeared to be brainwashed, leading the CIA to begin researching the possibilities of “mind control” and a variety of interrogation techniques. Between 1953 and 1973, the CIA used hundreds of witting and unwitting scientists to conduct at least 149 MKUltra subprojects at over 80 institutions, employing hundreds of researchers. Most of this research was unethical, with hideous abuses of research subjects who were often unaware of what was happening to them. This included dosing unsuspecting people with powerful drugs like LSD or potent concentrations of liquefied THC. Other MKUltra-funded research studies followed more conventional protocols, and researchers funded to do the research were often unaware they were conducting research for the CIA. I studied one of these programs, run through a research facility located at the Cornell University Medical School, the Human Ecology Fund, which during the 1950s and 60s funded a variety of seemingly mundane social science research, conducted by unwitting scholars. Some of these research projects studied topics, like cross-cultural stress indicators, that supplied information that would be reused in writing the CIA’s KUBARK interrogation manual, and other horrible CIA projects that MKUltra informed.

While there’s lots of wild speculation about MKUltra in popular culture, most of what is known about the program comes from revelations made during the Church Committee Senate Hearings in the mid-1970s, during that brief post-Watergate moment when the dam holding back so many state secrets broke. Most of the CIA’s records on the program were destroyed, though a small cache listing names of MKUltra research projects was later released in response to a FOIA request made by John Marks, a former State Department employee, which provided us with the precious little documentation we now have on the program.

There is scarce new information on MKUltra, so it is surprising to see congressional inquiry over half a century after the program terminated. But as is often the case, these questions about the past have less to do with this horrible past than they do with the horrible present.

In her opening statement, the chair of the Taskforce on Declassification of Federal Secrets, Rep. Anna Luna (R. Florida), made a surprisingly decent statement,

“MKUltra was not a policy failure or an overzealous program that got out of hand. It was a deliberate, systematic governmental operation that subjected American citizens, prisoners, hospital patients, veterans, and ordinary people to LSD electroshock hypnosis, sensory deprivation, and psychological torture without their knowledge or consent. This went on for 20 years on American soil, funded by American taxpayer dollars and authorized by the very top US intelligence apparatus. And this program, when it did end, the men who ran it did not cooperate with investigators. They did not come forward. They committed another crime. They destroyed evidence.”

Luna explained that as Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms was preparing to leave office in 1973, he ordered the destruction of all CIA MKUltra records. Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, who directed MKUltra, also destroyed all his records. Luna correctly identified these acts as illegal and as the CIA’s obstruction of justice. Luna stressed that Helms and Gottlieb were never meaningfully pushing for their crimes.

Luna made a special point of stressing that for some projects, regular civilian hospitals were used as research sites, with some experimenting on unsuspecting, unconsenting patients. In a revealing moment, her voice slipped into a eye-rolling-sarcastic-tone as she states “…the program ran for a decade, that we know of…” Her focus on government funded hospital based research did not seem accidental, and the task force’s later clash with one of the three witnesses, seems to indicate there is more to this.

The three witnesses delivering sworn testimony before the committee were Dr. Stephen Kinzer, author of the 2019 book, Poisoner In Chief, which tells the story of Sidney Gottleib, the CIA mad scientist director of MKUltra. Tom O’Neill author of CHAOS: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties, and Dr. Elizabeth Ginexi, a former senior program director at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). As she introduced the witnesses, Luna called all three witnesses “patriots” for their years of research into these CIA crimes.

Dr. Stephen Kinzer testified first. He spoke about the damages of the culture of secrecy and overclassification of documents, explained the details of how MKUltra secretly tried to discover methods of brainwashing and improved interrogation through torturous research, and described Gottlieb as having an unsupervised “license to kill.” Kinzer stressed that it may still be possible to find and release other MKUltra documents that still exist, to unredact existing documents, and to investigate whether some extension of MKUltra exists today using techniques of neuroscience or Artificial Intelligence.

Next, Tom O’Neill testified that CIA officials lied to Congress when they testified in the mid-70s to the Church Committee that MKUltra had been a failure (this is a controversial claim among MKUltra academic scholars, and his single source for this claim is suspect). He recounted his years of research he claims uncovered MKUltra links to Charles Mason and the Manson killings; which remains among MKUltra scholars one of the more controversial claims about the program. O’Neill described documents he discovered claiming MKUltra researchers had discovered methods, using hypnosis and drugs, to implant false memories in subjects, which he described as a “means of gaining the ability to seize control of a person’s perceptions, memories, and ultimately their behavior.”

The final witness was Dr. Elizabeth Ginexi, whose statement completely went off script as she slammed the Trump administration and Congress’s defunding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) research. She had nothing to say about MKUltra. Going rogue, she testified that what is:

“happening to NIH right now is not reform. It is the replacement of scientific judgment with political control. For eighty years, US federal investment in biomedical research produced outcomes that no private market would have funded. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. NIH-funded research on blood pressure, cholesterol, and smoking drove a 56% decline in heart disease between 1950 and 1996. Cancer has been transformed. Treatments for breast, lung, prostate, and childhood cancers, along with immunotherapies that converted previously fatal diagnoses into manageable conditions, are traced directly to NIH research.”

Dr Ginexi described the National Institute of Health’s history of sponsoring lifesaving research that no private profit-driven pharmaceutical company would fund. She called out the administration for its role in killing programs that would have helped manage the bird flu outbreak, Ebola, and hantavirus. She made zero mention of MKUltra. While she was still reading her testimony, Chairwoman Luna interrupted her and told her she had used her allotted time.

Congresswoman Luna’s questions cast a broad fishing net. She asked questions about Operation Naomi, Operation Paperclip–the US operation that brought over 1,600 German and Austrian scientists, most of whom had worked under the Nazis during the war, many of whom were Nazi party members. Luna asked if any Nazis were used in MKUltra. Dr Kinzer confirmed they were, and he described how some of MKUltra researchers extended Nazi experiments. Luna asked questions about the MKUltra personnel’s contacts with individuals reportedly involved in the assassination of JFK. O’Neill’s testimony suggested Jack Ruby could have been subjected to MKUltra.

Representative Eric Burlison (R. Missouri) asked if the CIA was involved in a famous 1951 incident in France (known as the Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning) where 200 people in a village were simultaneously dosed with a powerful hallucinogen by eating bread from a local bakery. Dr Kinzer did not know, but he said he had suspicions and wanted more investigation. Burlison asked about Operation Midnight Climax’s interrogation studies, where unsuspecting US citizens were lured into safehouses by sex workers, where they were dosed with LSD, filmed, and interrogated. When Burlison asked O’Neill if he thought that MKUltra secretly continued after 1973, he replied: “I don’t know. I can’t imagine it didn’t though…I imagine it’s being used. I have no evidence of it being used.”

For the record, as someone who distrusts the CIA and who spent years studying MKUltra. I believe MKUltra died within the agency in the 1960s. It died because it didn’t work. The types of mind control they wanted do not exist. The most effective forms of mind control aren’t found in the science fiction tropes these 1950s and 60s CIA operations experimented with, they’re found in the pages of New York Times, broadcasts of Fox News, MSNBC, and Newsmax, and the hundreds of thousands of human and circuit-boarded bots incessantly posting on social media. Certainly, the CIA continued to do all sorts of horrible things, but beyond generating some “useful” interrogation techniques, MKUltra mostly didn’t pan out because a lot of its ideas were unsound.

Representative Eli Crane (R Arizona) asked Dr. Ginexi if her statements were referring to the administration’s efforts to “reform and rein in the NIH.” But Ginexi corrected Crane, saying her remarks were “about the destruction of the NIH, the cancelation of grants, and the political control of the NIH.” Crane ignored her reply and asked her about the NIH funding of the Wuhan laboratory, a topic about which Dr Ginexi replied she knew nothing. But Crane spotted a soapbox opportunity to speechify about how, for years, we were all told to trust science, then “most of what we were told during COVID was a complete lie, and it wasn’t scientific at all.” Unfazed, Dr. Ginexi replied that,

“the number one thing that I think that we’re doing to destroy trust in American science right now is cancelling clinical trial in the middle of those clinical trials. This does incredible harm to the patients who are receiving experimental treatments and it really destroys the trust that we have in how do we recruit patients for future trials if they are knowing that their trials could just simply be canceled for political reasons.”

Crane did not address her points. He instead tripped down an anti-vaccine rabbit hole. But his rant got audience applause which he took as proof that the American people distrusted the NIH. Which increasingly seemed to be the point of this hearing. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R. Colorado) also made a short speech claiming that COVID was propaganda, and in comments apparently directed at Dr. Ginexi, she blamed America’s response to COVID on governmental agencies that are not responsive to Congress’s questions.

These moments of COVID science bashing and anti-government-funded science grandstanding appear to have revealed why the task force seemed interested in MKUltra a half a century after the fact.

Chairwoman Luna asked Dr Kinzer about the role of USAID in MKUltra projects; speculating that since we know that USAID has been used as CIA cover in the past and ”since part of USAID mission was to administer drugs to the poor and needy populations, would the organization have abused its mandate by poisoning foreign populations or creating dissociative states for interrogation or torture?” Kizner replied that he had no direct knowledge of this, but that during the Cold War, many government agencies conducted covert operations.

Representative Timothy Floyd Burchett (R-Tennessee) asked what the chances are that, with recent technological advances, more advanced MKUltra-like techniques could cause a “loner” to take shots at a president? O’Neill referenced the Butler, Pennsylvania, assassination attempt on candidate Trump and the killing of Charlie Kirk and said:

“I just hate to speculate, because I don’t know, I have no firsthand knowledge whether those guys were programed through radio waves or through their computer activity. So I would never hazard a guess except to say what I’ve already said that they developed means that we’ve never been told about many, many, years ago and I imagine they’ve evolved to much more effective now.”

Which is an awful lot of speculation for someone who, with zero evidence, hates to speculate.

Not to be outdone in describing a conspiracy theory without any concrete evidence, Representative Burchet interrupted O’Neill to say:

“Don’t you think that they could cast this broad net through these algorithms and other things, and maybe they don’t know the exact person it’s going to affect, but they know what type of person its to affect, and they know it’s going happen. And that way they can…they can’t predict when it’s going to happen, but they think it will happen. And that they can sort of wash their hands of this whole thing and say, well, we didn’t have anything to do with it. But in effect. They really did because they put this out there and they continue to put it out there.”

Dr. Kinzer replied that what Congressman Burchet described sounded like the MLK assassination and the government’s role in creating a climate where he was considered “the most dangerous man in America.” Which might conceivably be generally a reasonable thing to say in a normal discussion, but in a room where people have been freely speculating about mind controlling radio waves, I wouldn’t be confident that they understand that Hoover’s FBI was spreading leaflets and hate mail about MLK that fed a climate of violence.

Finally, at the conclusion of the hearing, when asked if he had anything to add, Dr. Kinzer explained that:

“There’s a reason why conspiracy theories are so widespread in America. It has to do with the disassociation between what we say we are and do, and what we really are and do. This has become more and more clear to more people. Therefore, they’re suspicious of nefarious dealings by the US, and they’re also suspicious of other things that aren’t nefarious at all, but there’s just this mentality that is created by the covert sphere. And that’s what makes people realize that things that used to seem really farfetched, and not so farfetched after all.”

But this was almost an afterthought to an over hour and a half session, where nothing new about MKUltra was learned, and whose purpose for being held over a half century after the program’s demise was never stated, but the attacks on publicly funded research seemed to clarify.

But stated or not, the reasons for this showboating stunt seemed clear. Kinzer, O’Neill, and Ginexi were props in a broader campaign attacking government spending on research; and while Kinzer and O’Neill appeared unconcerned that their hosts were using their testimony to spread their own conspiracy theories about covid, mind control, a certain type of deep state, along with general attacks on publicly funded science; while Dr. Ginexi did not go along with the sham. Dr. Ginexi’s testimony shed more light on what this hearing was about than what her fellow witnesses did, even though she said nothing about MKUltra.

With all the talk from the congressional task force about their concern about MKUltra’s abuse of research subjects (and it there were horrible abuses), they had no answers to Dr. Ginexi’s questions about the harm being done today to members of medical research studies whose treatments were suddenly cancelled due to the federal research cuts they had approved. Never mind that I find it difficult to believe these congressional representatives would oppose using the torture and interrogation techniques developed by MKUltra-sponsored research against enemies.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for cleaning house at the CIA. If my regime was in power, I would hold hearings on these and many other CIA crimes. I might even ask some of these same questions to these and other witnesses. I’m all for dismantling the CIA as a covert arm of government; for ending the CIA’s decades of covert actions and ending their role (as Philip Agee put it) as the secret police of American capitalism. But these members of Congress and Trump obviously don’t want any of this. They want as many excuses as possible for Acting Director of National Intelligence Bill Pulte to shake things up with agency purges, routing out the old deep state so he can implant the new one, and this hearing was just one more stunt in support of this campaign.

I am thankful that Dr. Elizabeth Ginexi had the courage of her convictions and the presence of mind to appear and give the sworn testimony she did. Her calm and lucid performance helped clarify why this particular committee would choose to delve into this dark chapter of ancient history, and her decision not to harmonize with this thinly veiled attack on the public funding of research was heroic.

David Price is an anthropologist living in Olympia, Washington. His latest book is Cold War Deceptions: The Asia Foundation and CIA, published by University of Washington Press.