Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ebola Bombs, the next bio-weapon?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: stirling

Because nobody would touch them....they would have to make a direct hit on a person/persons for it to have the desired outcome. The infection rate would be far higher if it first took over the animal population. Say for instance it hit the pig farmers. It would quickly spread to humans based solely on the contact from the farmer/farmhands/slaughterhouse/supermarket......now that would be a fast spread.




posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

I have had bats removed from my last house by exterminators. They found an opening beside the chimney into the attic and took up residence for a couple months until I found them. The exterminator came in contact with them.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Mother nature is going to do that all on her own like she's done in the past. Black death of the 1300 ,the Spanish flu of the early twentieth century. Sooner or later it will happen again. But look at it this way, our ancestors are the survivors of those events so we're probably more immune now. The population is growing at an alarming rate. A world wide plague is mother nature's answer. Something new and natural. a reply to: Vasa Croe



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Did they join you at the dinner table? Did they pee or poop on you? Did they bleed on you? Just having them in the house is not enough. a reply to: Vasa Croe




posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Now bats are carriers for Ebola, so why would this not be an actual possibility?


Because most people outside of Africa don't eat bats.



Bats would simply be the carrier to other animals. Bats live around human populations, often even making it into the attics of homes. Say one dies and you go to clean up the body, or have an exterminator in to do it and they come in contact with the bat with bare skin or whatever....infection begins.


It is a very poor plan of infection.

These bats are native to Africa and are always carrying Ebola...and yet human infection is very rare even though they do eat fruit bats fairly often.

So the plan is to release the bats...then wait 5 or 10 years to see if there is ever an outbreak, which is then contained to a small local area and wait another 5-10 years???

It's just not likely and Ebola in that way makes a very poor weapon.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Nope, but like I said....the exterminator came in contact with them and their guana. I wasn't necessarily saying that I personally would be the one infected....simply showing that a bat could easily pass it to the exterminator through contact. It isn't like the guy wore a biohazard suit.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
www.medicaldaily.com...

This article outlines how the disease gets passed on to humans from the bats who are believed to be a reservoir between outbreaks. You'd have to eat the bat.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Not necessarily. All it takes is one. Africa is spread out. If this same outbreak that is currently occurring happened to hit a large, high population city....it would spread like wildfire.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So basically that's a plot to eliminate the Terminix man?
LOL.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Since its only contagious when a person has symptoms and since those symptoms are severe from the get go the carrier would more than likely go to the emergency room right away and there would end the epidemic in any first world country. a reply to: Vasa Croe



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
You would still have to get the person to eat the bat. The bats are asymptomatic. So apparently cleaning up after them wouldn't do it either.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
nm
edit on 8/11/2014 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
You are from the US right? You know how fast they trace back food borne illnesses to their sources then. Shut down happens pretty quick. An airborne illness like SARS or the flu would make a better bio weapon. Bats no not so much. a reply to: Vasa Croe



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: kruphix

Not necessarily. All it takes is one. Africa is spread out. If this same outbreak that is currently occurring happened to hit a large, high population city....it would spread like wildfire.


Nigeria...174 million people...not sure that makes sense. Lagos has more than 5 million inhabitants...



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Nigeria only became involved when it was carried there from Liberia. Still they were very quick to stop its spread.
And you're right a very high population not the wide spread villages people associate with Africa. reply to: Jonjonj

edit on AM000000310000000883308312014-08-11T11:08:31-05:00 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657
The very idea of Ebola has caught people's attention, the facts are rather different.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
It's a regular ebolapalooza. reply to: Jonjonj



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Any virus needs a biomass to form a reservoir. Hot viruses like Ebola by their nature deplete their reservoir quicker than it can grow, so ultimately, they tend to 'burn out' fairly rapidly. Less hot viruses such as flu and the common cold, don't deplete their reservoir any where near as fast, so the reservoir grows faster than the virus can eat through it. And this is with a fairly infectious agent like influenza which can be transmitted through the aerosol effect from coughs and sneezes etc.

Your 'bat based' transmission theory, would likely be too ineffective to prove a serious threat.

When you're choosing a weapon, a key factor would be how effective it is. You'd choose a gun before a rock, because a bullet is more lethal than a large rock. The same factors apply. Ebola in its current natural state, is like a very big rock that would kill you if it fell on you. However in order for your plan to work, you'll need a crane to haul the rock up high enough and persuade your target to go stand underneath it.

Its probably easier to spend your time trying to build a briefcase nuke.

I'm aware of the claims about the Soviets trying to create an ebola-pox weaponised agent, but as yet there is only really one guy's testimony that this was ever even attempted. And he has been extremely vague on the transmission agent that he said they used which preserved the virus in the open air. And I'm not sure how much stock we can place in a former Russian bio weapons expert who defected to the west.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Humanity has created far worse than the Ebola virus. If indeed TPTB wanted to weaponize and deploy such a device Ebola would be the least of our problems, and any virus "they" did utilise would also most lightly be transmitted by air, Ebola transmission is due to sputum and blood so it seems like a poor choice.
edit on 12-8-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 06:16 AM
link   
So I'm gonna bump this thread again in the hopes it scares people sufficiently. I mean this generally because it does appear that although improbable it is certainly possible. If the market is any indicator and the subsequent scare tactics, "Atlanta Tweet", article after article than I suggest we do ourselves a favor and feign like we are scared and allow our governments to buy up the vaccines. Big Pharma and investors get what they want without someone doing something stupid like Ebola Bombing a western country. Because then advanced nations will stockpile the vaccine....cha ching.






top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join