Letter Sent to Dr Staniger
Dear Dr. Staniger,
I am writing to formally raise concerns and demand clarification regarding several public claims and private reports you have authored on nanotoxicology, Morgellons, and targeted individuals. This message is also to put you on notice regarding potential legal action should retaliation be taken against those who publicly challenge your findings.
❌ 1. Invalid and Unscientific Report Content
Your claims of implantable nanotechnology, synthetic biology mechanisms, and neural influence via “toxic exposure” are not substantiated by:
- Peer-reviewed publications
- Laboratory-grade spectrometric or microscopic analysis
- Chain-of-custody evidence
- Quantifiable signal capture or forensic RF data
Additionally, you routinely fail to provide any repeatable methodology or documentation that could allow a qualified third party to verify your findings.
⚠️ 2. Incompetence of Your TSCM Support Team
You’ve repeatedly stated that your conclusions were validated by “TSCM professionals.” After reviewing numerous reports connected to your name, I can confirm that those professionals did not possess the knowledge, tools, or methodology required to detect state-level actors or covert RF implants.
- No IQ data was captured
- No sub-noise floor detection was attempted (signals you claim to identify occur below –150 dBm)
- The tools used lacked proper RBW resolution or time-domain capture capability
- Waterfall, modulation type, and signal chain were never documented
As a licensed and practicing TSCM expert, I have personally reviewed and debunked 10 of your reports.
These reports show a complete misunderstanding of how RF surveillance and covert implants work, and your reliance on weak or irrelevant data has misled clients and harmed the broader TI community.
🚨 3. Legal Notice Regarding Threats or Retaliation
Let this serve as a formal notice:
- If you attempt to sue or threaten any individual for sharing or analyzing your reports publicly, I will pursue a counteraction for fraud.
- As a professional who has debunked your reports with evidence, I will not hesitate to escalate the matter legally if victims continue to be misled.
- Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) do not protect fraud. If your reports are proven to contain false scientific claims presented as fact, those disclosures are not protected under civil contract law.
This is not an empty threat—it is a warning backed by direct forensic analysis and professional standing.
🧪 4. Formal Request for Scientific Clarification
To protect the community and ensure scientific standards, I request:
- Original lab documentation and equipment logs for your implant claims
- Exact names and credentials of your TSCM professionals
- Clarification of the RF and toxicology methodology used
- Your current licensure status and any relevant regulatory affiliation
- Evidence that any of your reports meet chain-of-custody or evidentiary standards for court
🎯 Why This Is Necessary
You are influencing medical, legal, and technical decisions in a highly vulnerable community. Victims are submitting your reports in court. If these claims collapse under scrutiny, you are not just discrediting yourself—you are setting back the entire TI movement.
If you believe your reports are valid, then agree to a public, recorded, peer-reviewed technical discussion, where your methodology and findings can be tested by neutral experts.
Sincerely,
#######
Licensed TSCM Professional | CyberTorture Contributor
Cybertorture.com
Providing Communication for complete transparency