Tag Archives: Synthetic virology

BBC picks up on 25000 microcephaly cases in US

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35471545

BBC-25000-microcephaly-cases-US
Note: 25K microcephaly cases in the US, why? Brazil has less than 300 confirmed cases out of the dubious 4000 claimed cases.
Will W.H.O. declare the US an affected pandemic region in relation to microcephaly of unknown cause?
Hint to CDC and WHO: Vaccine induced damage, GMO crop consumption, glyphosates, pesticides

BBC: Zika-linked condition: WHO declares global emergency

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35459797

WHO director general, Margaret Chan called Zika an “extraordinary event” that needed a coordinated response.
“I am now declaring that the recent cluster of microcephaly and other neurological abnormalities reported in Latin America following a similar cluster in French Polynesia in 2014 constitutes a public health emergency of international concern.”

Note: We have several opposing views concerning the cause of microcephaly in Brazil.
1) Zika virus or some other viral fragment carried by Aedes Egypti mosquitoes
2) Pollutants like glyphosate and other pesticides
3) Mandated vaccines during pregnancy, in Brazil TDAP.

WHO Director-general, Margaret Chan has decided on the zika virus as the causal agent in the cases of microcephaly in Brazil.
Their solution? Expedite GMO vaccine and diagnostics research.

Link to Audio of Press Briefing

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

Africa: Senegalese Help Brazil Fight the Zika Virus

http://allafrica.com/stories/201601261297.html

Senegalese researchers who helped contain the Ebola epidemic in West Africa are training Brazilians on how to tackle the Zika virus. They have brought along a mobile lab which quickly detects the virus.

Senegalese researcher Amadou Alpha Sall brought with him to Brazil a small team and a lab which fits into a bag. He wants to help Brazilians defeat the current epidemic of mosquito-borne Zika

The head of the Senegalese team believes that the most efficient way to control the epidemic is to quickly identify and isolate infected patients. Zanotto agrees: “People think controlling a vector means killing the mosquito. But controlling a vector means controlling a person in the viremic stage, because it is the patient who infects the mosquito. Once infected, the patient himself turns into a repository for the virus.”

Zika originated in Africa (note: it was extracted from a monkey). But until 2007, it infected only monkeys and didn’t harm humans. Scientists believe that the virus adapted (note: synthetic virologists tinkered) as it spread throughout the continents, becoming more dangerous for humans.

Speculative potential strains/variants:

  • Zika virus (original 1947)
  • Zika virus (cases 2007)
  • Zika virus (French Polynesia 2013)
  • Zika virus (Brazil 2015)

Zika virus strain (ATCC® VR-84™) – $516.00

http://www.atcc.org/Products/All/VR-84.aspx?slp=1&geo_country=us#culturemethod

Ziki virus ATCC VR-84aZiki virus ATCC VR-84b

Note: Thanks to a post on WRH, posting this for archival purposes. Of interest is the depositor, Rockefeller Foundation.  Interesting, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) share the same interest in viruses and their manipulation. An interest in continuing the rockefeller allopathic eugenicists policies.
Zika virus search link on ATCC Site
Zika virus (ATCC® VR-84™)
ATCC® Number: VR-84™
Classification: Flaviviridae, Flavivirus
Strain: MR 766 (Original)
Product Format: freeze-dried
Biosafety Level: 2
Source: Blood from experimental forest sentinel rhesus monkey, Uganda, 1947
Effect on Host: Paralysis and death
Updated 31/1/2016

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.

Here’s the Company That’s the Closest to developing a Zika Vaccine

Here’s the Company That’s the Closest to developing a Zika Vaccine
by Laura Lorenzetti January 28, 2016, 5:37 PM E
[Full article copied for archival purposes, is informational and non-commercial]

The Zika virus has spread rapidly across the Americas, arriving in Brazil last May and creeping into 22 other countries and territories around the region. The virus’ spread has been accompanied by a steep increase in babies born with abnormally small heads and in cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, an uncommon nervous system disease. This has raised the alarm among public health officials around the world—and launched the quest for a vaccine that could stop its spread.

The U.S. and international governments are pushing forward with programs for Zika vaccines, and at least three pharmaceutical companies are either considering or actively pursing programs, including giants GlaxoSmithKlineGSK, and Sanofi SNY. But the company that appears to be the farthest along is a relatively small $500 million market cap biotech named Inovio Pharmacuetucals INO. Wall Street has shown interest in the company. Inovio’s stock was up about 8% today on news that it is entering clinical trials with its MERS vaccine, which could also hold promise for a future Zika vaccine.

Nonetheless, even Inovio is likely a ways off from developing a human Zika vaccine.

“It is important to understand that we will not have a widely available, safe, and effective Zika vaccine this year, and probably not even in the next few years,” Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), said in a press conference.

The advantage of Zika vaccine programs is that they can use similar mosquito-based diseases, part of a family called flaviviruses, like dengue, West Nile virus, and chikungunya as a “jumping off” point. While researchers are currently trying to learn more about the basics of the Zika virus and its effects on the human body given how new the disease is, they can already use past vaccine development platforms from other flaviviruses as a foundation since they spread in similar ways.

NIAID is already working on two approaches: a DNA-based vaccine, similar to a strategy used for West Nile virus, which has been found safe and effective in a phase one trial. It is also working on a more traditional killed virus-vaccine, similar to those already developed to prevent dengue.

Traditional killed-virus(?) vaccines, also called live-attenuated vaccines, are what most of us are used to. They are grown in eggs using live viruses, and then made inactive by a chemical process, and are the basis for the vast majority of vaccines we take as children and annually to prevent the flu. They are time intensive to develop, typically requiring between 10 and 15 years before they are approved, according to GlaxoSmithKline.

DNA-based vaccines, on the other hand, can reduce that development time by creating a synthetic DNA sequence in a lab that can trigger the human body to create the same antigens as from a killed virus. This cuts development time since it doesn’t need to grow a live virus, which can have unpredictable development pathways.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals has also been working on a DNA-based vaccine for Zika since December. In that time, Inovio has created a DNA strand that can potentially prevent the virus, using its knowledge from its dengue virus program. It is now testing the vaccine in mice and plans to move into testing primates “in the next few weeks,” said Inovio CEO J. Joseph Kim. Once its safety is confirmed, the vaccine will move into phase one testing in humans—as soon as the end of 2016.

“The beauty of this technological platform is that the vaccine is simply a DNA sequence developed in water,” said Kim. “It cuts through all the difficult handling and complex development times of traditional vaccine approaches.”

Inovio has taken this same approach with an Ebola vaccine, going from “bench to clinic”—researcher terms, meaning from initial creation to human testing—in just over 18 months. That program attracted the interest of the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which gave the company $45 million to support the program’s ongoing development. The biotech is also working on a DNA-based vaccine for MERS, which has gone from its creation in a lab to a phase one trial at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in just over a year.

Still, while animal applications of these preventatives have been approved in animals, DNA-based vaccines are one of the latest medical advancements, and one has yet to be approved for use in humans in the U.S. Even though Inovio has attracted fans on Wall Street, it still has a lot to prove.

Note: Open declaration that the synthetic virologists can and will create viruses or virus fragments to pollute, contaminate your sovereign earthly vehicle for profit!
Don’t forget in the US they are indemnified against lawsuits. They are protected from any harm or damage that their synthetic DNA vaccines cause. A BIG MORAL HAZARD.