Tag Archives: Bioterrorism

Secret Science: A Century of Poison Warfare and Human Experiments

Non-affiliate Amazon link (informational):

Extract from a review:

“…Schmidt reveals that the scientists at Porton Down also had the wider public in their sights. A chemical of ‘largely unknown toxic potential’ was dispersed by plane over civilian populations in Wiltshire, Bedfordshire and Norfolk. Similarly ships, aircraft and moving lorries dispersed the carcinogen zinc cadmium sulphide. The London Underground was also targeted with Bacillus globigii, a bacterium now thought to be linked to food poisoning, eye infections and septicemia released on the Northern Line. While scientists of the time considered these substances to be safe and it is only now that their risks are understood, the fact is that nobody asked the public whether they minded being guinea pigs in tests and scores of people were potentially put at risk.”

Note:
This blog has asserted the means, motive and actual acts of human experimentation on unsuspecting populations. The focus has been on recent “incidents” in West Africa and Southern America however UK and US populations are targets. It is in that light that I view CDC/WHO pandemic declarations of the past and certainly again in the future. This also supports Mike Adams recent post about a future “false flag” bio-attack.

Advertisements

Inside high security laboratory developing a Zika vaccine – BBC News

27 January 2016
Talking Heads
Prof Scott Weaver
Director Institute for Human Infections and Immunity
Dr Shannan Rossie
Uni of Texas Medical Branch
Prof Nikos Vasilakis
Centre for Biodefence and Emerging Infectious Disease

Reporter: James Cook

Scott Weaver: Last Year when it reached Brazil, it really exploded when it reached the Americas, infecting probably a couple of million people at this point

James Cook: and should  people we be frightened, especially pregnant women?

Scott Weaver: Absolutely, if you know, if I had a daughter of child bearing age, she was planning a spring break vacation to the carribean, next few months I would strongly urge her not to go there at this point

Note: Prof Scott Weaver is emphatic that Zika is a threat to pregnant women however he said child bearing age was a concern if he had a daughter. Scott Weaver is either a liar or has information on the link between Zika and microcephaly.

Zika is in Africa and the Pacific, so would he be concerned about travelling to those areas? Why not? Is the strain of Zika in Brazil different to those in Africa and Asia-pacific? Oh, the carrier is different possibly, the strain of Aedes egypti, does that have any bearing on the transmission of Zika?

Prof Scott Weaver has no problems with his hypothetical daughter travelling to Zika infested Africa but is concernied with the strain of zika and the strain of mosquito in the carribean?

I was inclined to write off both Prof Scott Weaver and his Galvaston colleague Prof Nikos Vasilakis as liars for not providing the evidence for their assertions. Show us the causal link that gives you the certainty that Zika is linked to microcephaly.

This blogger and others could not understand why they rushed to assert a link without entertaining other possiblities namely vaccines given during pregnancy, pollutants, the impact of malnoutrition or the GM Aedes Egypti mosquitoes themselves.

Then it dawned on me, an unpalatable possibility, they both know that zika passes the placental barrier and impacts fetal brain development. These virologists are amongt a few people that deal with viruses routinely. They would know what type of arbovirus could defeat the placental barrier, they would know what strain of mosquito would be a carrier. Prof Weavers adamant refusal to let his hypohetical daughter visit the carribean starts to make sense. It is also evidence that cannot be shared wihout further questions arising. It also explains why Vasilakis and Rossie were interested in placental fluids on their visit in Dec 2015.

I hope I am wrong. That these f@#king psycopaths would collect viruses, engineer and release them to see the effects is difficult to accept.

Have a look at psycopath Scott C. Weaver’s “encephalitis papers on PubMed. Scotty has been on this topic for 10 years at least. Straight from the horses mouth:
Direct broad-range detection of alphaviruses in mosquito extracts.
“Members of the genus Alphavirus are a diverse group of principally mosquito-borne RNA viruses. There are at least 29 species and many more subtypes of alphaviruses and some are considered potential bioweapons

Truth-out: Florida Dengue Fever Outbreak Leads Back to CIA and Army Experiments

http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/90808:florida-dengue-fever-outbreak-leads-back-to-cia-and-army-experiments
Wednesday, 21 July 2010 12:08
By HP Albarelli Jr and Zoe Martell

Unknown to most Americans is that dengue fever has been the intense focus of US Army and CIA biological warfare researchers for over 50 years. Ed Regis notes in his excellent history of Fort Detrick, “The Biology of Doom,” that as early as 1942 leading biochemists at the installation placed dengue fever on a long list for serious consideration as a possible weapon. In the early 1950s, Fort Detrick, in partnership with the CIA, launched a multi-million dollar research program under which dengue fever and several addition exotic diseases were studied for use in offensive biological warfare attacks. Assumably, because the virus is generally not lethal, program planners viewed it primarily as an incapacitant. Reads one CIA Project Artichoke document: “Not all viruses have to be lethal … the objective includes those that act as short-term and long-term incapacitants.”

Synthetic (GM) Insects as weapons

If a small nation state engineers an insect common to a target (enemy) state and releases it within the boundaries of its target country, is that an act of war?

If a DIY synthetic biologists, tinkers with midges, mosquitoes or any biting insect which then inflicts harm on fellow citizens, is he directly culpable?

If a corporation engineers an insect and releases it within a town, is it liable for any resultant harm or injury?

If a nation state in partnership with a corporation releases a “synthetic” mosquito into your neighbourhood that causes harm, are they both liable?

Oxitec/Intrexon are at the forefront of what is a very cheap means of biowarfare or eugenics. The technology is within the reach of time rich and well funded individuals.

Nation states, corporations, individuals creating synthetic insects to design and the consequent mistakes or deliberate actions that will ensure is a reality.

How will the statists or corporate pirates hide their mistakes? If the mistake occurs in the target country, its a release 1.0 build, let us try release 1.1. It will be better.

It is now openly stated and documented by the existence of the field of synthetic virologists and biologists that bacteria, viruses and insects can be made to order.

Acknowledging this fact, what is a community not inclined to use this technology offensively to do? Reactive biological surveillance and analysis?

How do you deal with funded foundations linked to vaccines, gene editing Editas, Glyphosate Monsanto and now GM mosquitoes Oxitec?

A supranational body like WHO is beholden to its sponsers, so in the case of a “pandemic”, what objectives will WHO and linked supra-national bodies achieve? Objectives compliant with their sponsors, no?

What will be the solution? More DNA engineering with viruses and insects. Vaccines and GM research will be the corporate cry.

A country finds itself in the midst of a strange, new, “emerging” disease. It does not have the capability to sequence the offending virus, bacteria or insect, so accepts whatever assistance supra-national and external governments provide. That naivete and lack of independent analysis means even an overt attack will not be seen as an act of war or subjugation, merely a pandemic requiring external assistance.

Synthetic insects, synthetic viruses are a fact. Like any weapon it can be used offensively or defensively but here is the huge problem with the synthetic life technocrats – can you really use synthetic insects in a defensive way? Once released you relinquish control. You have no way to predict the outcome. Even offensively, it is a short term tactic with unknown long term effects for the initiator or its target.

The technology is now routine, its offensive impact has yet to sink in…its defensive usefulness is questionable.

ADVISE TO STATISTS: Start spending some of your public health budget on DNA monitoring/sequencing of your local ecology, pronto! You can then prove an “emerging” pandemic as a foreign introduction.

Age of Bioterrorism: Are You Prepared? Review of Bioweapons and Their Clinical Presentation for Otolaryngologists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24757076

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

This review on Category A bioweapons is intended to help otolaryngologists (1) understand the concepts of bioterrorism, (2) identify a bioterrorism attack, and (3) recognize specific otolaryngologic symptoms and signs of Category A bioweapons.

DATA SOURCES:

PubMed and Medline databases.

REVIEW METHODS:

Review of current literature regarding Category A agents of biological warfare and their relationships to otolaryngology was performed using PubMed, Medline, and articles written by experts in the field of bioterrorism. Each Category A agent was paired with the term otolaryngology and then paired with epistaxis, sinusitis, airway obstruction, pharyngitis, tonsillitis, hearing loss, otitis media, and lymphadenopathy individually. For the latest accepted treatment and diagnostic strategies, bioterrorism was searched with filters for human studies, English language, and the past 5 years. Titles, abstracts, and papers were read for relevancy.

CONCLUSION:

While the use of bioweapons initially leads to nonspecific symptoms, a high index of suspicion and clustering of abnormal pathology will often lead the astute physician to the correct diagnosis of bioweapons. Some disease presentations of Category A agents (anthrax, smallpox, tularemia, botulism, plague, hemorrhagic fever) will involve the realm of otolaryngology( Ear, Nose & Throat Specialist).

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:

The head and neck manifestations of a Category A bioweapon attack will require knowledgeable otolaryngologists for prompt diagnosis, treatment, and notification of public authorities. This will help decrease the morbidity and mortality of any potential bioterrorism attack.

© American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2014.

KEYWORDS
Category A agents; anthrax; bioterrorism; bioweapons; botulism; hemorrhagic fevers; plague; smallpox; tularemia