It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Weaponization of Ebola

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Each survivor will have to bury 9 - Pianka actually said this.


Even worse, have you ever seen how those bodies are buried? Mass burials in white bags; no contact allowed. I'm pretty sure if Dr. Pianka's plan came to pass, everyone on earth, or nearly everyone would be killed. The people burying the dead would be stupid and perform improper burials resulting in contraction of the disease. Other than that, Ebola is NOT a 100% fatal disease; so it wouldn't be as effective as he says.




posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
The incubation period is 2-21 days...

Also, we're talking about it being used a BIOWEAPON suicide. Not contracting it from the natural environment, but biologically injected or forced into the system.

2-21 days could allow enough time to fly and go through airport checks and what not.

Also, it could be done within the city in the first place so that it wouldn't be required to fly across great distances.

It's possible.


I'm sorry my friend but, your arguament does not make sense. Are you saying that any sane or for that matter, any insame person or persons would deliberately break into a laboratory - say the CDC (US) or CMR (UK) and deliberatly infect themselves with a desease that would kill them with a slow and agonising death?

Such places are heavily guarded with highly trained security personnel who would have the right to 'shoot to kill'.

If on the other hand, you are suggesting that an evil biochemist could obtain the Ebola virus on the black market, that presupposes a supply of the virus is readily available for the criminal or terrorist underworld vto use. That is certainly not the case.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Personally, I find it hard to imagine why anyone would need to use ebola as a BW agent.

Its wise to remember that Ken Alibek had book and TV rights to sell when he made these unverified claims. No-one in the media seems to have asked him why the Soviets would need a smallpox/ebola hybrid BW agent, when smallpox on its own would suffice.


May I respectfully suggest you acquire the book, 'A Higher form of Killing', co-written by Jeremy Paxman of our illustrious BBC.


I also would like to recommend that anyone interested in this subject should read this groundbreaking (for its time) history of CBW research, but do bear in mind that it is now nearly 25 years out of date.

Much more information about the UK/US/CAN BW research programme has recently been declassified, and some of it is now starting to appear in print. For example, Brian Balmer, Senior Lecturer at the University of London, published in 2001 his book - Britain and Biological Warfare (Palgrave), which details the history of the UK's BW research 1930-1965.



zero lift


[edit on 30-4-2006 by zero lift]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
smallpox on its own wouldn`t do - whilst it is contagious (and in some case highly) it can be treated in virtually all cases.

on the other hand - ebola heas a high mortality rate , but isn`t as contagious (unless they`ve somehow made retson ebola with smallpox)



"As a weapon, the Ebolapox would give the hemorrhages and high mortality rate of Ebola virus, which would give you a blackpox, plus the very high contagiousness of smallpox,"



taken from ken alibek`s book `biohazard`.


that is why the chimera is to be used.


you could kill everyone better than nukes can do. especially for MAD.


[edit on 30/4/06 by Harlequin]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   


smallpox on its own wouldn`t do - whilst it is contagious (and in some case highly) it can be treated in virtually all cases.


er.....I think that if you check you'll find that the reverse is actually true, Harlequin.

Treatment for smallpox is mainly supportive, ie treatment given to prevent, control, or relieve complications and side effects and to improve the patient's comfort and quality of life.

It is not a cure!

Vaccination given in the first four days may reduce the mortality rate by 50%. Cidofovir may have some antiviral action against some smallpox strains, but the drawback is that cidofovir is toxic and difficult to administer.

Both the US and UK Governments got themselves in quite a state a couple of years ago purely because there is no definite cure for smallpox.

The White House included this fact on their website There is no proven treatment for smallpox, but research to evaluate new antiviral agents is ongoing.

You can read the UK Government's Health Protection Agency smallpox contingency plans by clicking on the link below.

Delibera te Release – Information for Health Professionals – Smallpox

I still feel that there is no need for a smallpox/ebola hybrid when smallpox on its own would serve as well.




zero lift





posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I tend to believe Ken Alibek on this subject. Indications seem to back that when the US publicly got out of the Bio Weapon game the USSR didnt believe them (who could blame them) and redouble their efforts in the field. That would mean the Soviets have a 2 decade lead in Bio weapons programs.

A good read on this subject IMHO is also

The Demon in the freezer

Its scary how after mankind all but wiped out the scourge of small pox the only two official smallpox stocks were kept by the Super powers the US and USSR. I doubt it was for the benifit of mankind.

I have also heard some scary rumors of Bio weapons that could target people based on genetic markers. If you didnt have the marker the weapon was designed to find it would remain passive and would kill, but if you had the marker it was made to match up with it would kick into work.

That brings up the biggest issue with Bio weapons "control". The most deadly ones which would be far more scary then nuclear weapons IMHO have no control they wouldnt care about sides or take orders. They could come back and be spread to the people that used them and hit them just as bad. If you could create some form of control with modern advancements in genetics they could become a very effective weapon.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by zero lift

I still feel that there is no need for a smallpox/ebola hybrid when smallpox on its own would serve as well.



Remember this was experimental back in those days. Their goal was to create more powerful weapons. Even these days, some people might say: "oh TNT or diameter bombs might "suffice"; but did that stop the creation of nuclear weapons? These people were being paid to create the most powerful weapons they possibly could.

Smallpox can be treated; Ebola has no known treatments within humans. Within monkeys, the mortality rate can be greatly decreased with either a vaccine or antiobiotics (can't remember which it is); whereas in humans, every attempt at a vaccine and treatment have failed.

As for the person that was questioning whether a person could buy Ebola off the black market, or whatever; I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

I'm saying that a terrorist group MIGHT have the resources to themselves create the Ebola biological weapon. They would then make sure that one of their own contracted this illness, whether before flying to a major city, or once already there. This could then cause catostrophic problems within that city.

It's possible.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Interesting posts. For starters, the days of using a filovirus as a weapon is near its end, as according to NPR this last friday, the CDC announced that it has sucessfully cured Marburg in monkeys. In short they infected the animals, gave half a placebo and the other half the actual experimental vaccine. What shocked them was that they got a result higher than what they expected. Can Ebola be used as a weapon for a sucidie person, yes. You do not have to be infected to get on the plane, and a small vial in a small styrophome container, with syringes is enough to do the job. Getting the virus to the actual point is more of a trick, since you will want to make sure that it is the living virus, and that it makes it to its intended destination. Getting it onto a plane or into the airport is not a problem, hence the medical vial and syringes, who after all would deny say a diabetic his insuline shots? Once in the air, taking off from an internation airport, the terrorist, gives him self the fatal injection and then sits back and lets it go into his body. When he reaches the internation airport on the other end, after travelling across the atlantic, his body is now a biohazard hot spot. All he has to do is cough and sneeze on other people, and the nightmare begins. So it is very possible to use a filovirus as a weapon of terror and to do such using an airline in the process.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient

Originally posted by zero lift

I still feel that there is no need for a smallpox/ebola hybrid when smallpox on its own would serve as well.



Remember this was experimental back in those days. Their goal was to create more powerful weapons. Even these days, some people might say: "oh TNT or diameter bombs might "suffice"; but did that stop the creation of nuclear weapons? These people were being paid to create the most powerful weapons they possibly could.


I think its a good idea to ask just how 'powerful' an agent needs to be. This is why I find Ken Alibek's stories of mass production of smallpox/ebola hybrids suspect. Why go to all that trouble when the same effect can be reached with an antibiotic resistant strain of pestis.

BW agents are selected for various reasons: ie their ability to survive aerosolisation, shock and heat; virulence, ability to cause secondary infection (contagiousness) etc.

By the time of the so-called end of the US BW offensive capability, the US were able to use quite a few BW agents at short notice. These agents would have covered any contingency that the US felt necessary; they included incapacitating agents, lethal agents, contagious agents and territory-denying agents.

Why bother to go to all the trouble that the Soviets are meant to have gone to, when all you need is a few selected firm favourites that would cause the same effect?

I must make it clear that I'm in no way suggesting that the Soviets did not create a vast clandestine BW production system in the 1970s-1980s. All I'm saying is that the stories of them producing large-scale amounts of 'exotic' BW agents should be taken with a large dose of salt.



Originally posted by Omniscient
Smallpox can be treated
; Ebola has no known treatments within humans. Within monkeys, the mortality rate can be greatly decreased with either a vaccine or antiobiotics (can't remember which it is); whereas in humans, every attempt at a vaccine and treatment have failed.


Smallpox victims can be only given supportive care, not cured; which, as I mentioned before, makes a smallpox/ebola hybrid totally unnecessary.




zero lift



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
True they may not be able to be cured, BUT the mortality rate of Ebola is far higher, and that's pretty much a fact. The only reason Smallpox is much more well-known as a weapon is because it has killed many more people during the years, and there is physical proof of it being weaponized; whereas Ebola has only occured in small outbreaks and, technically, the existence of an Ebola bioweapon has never been 100% proved, or at least not to my knowledge which is why I started this thread; to see if anyone had proof.

And actually, Ken Alibek states that they were originally going to use ONLY Ebola. Smallpox was later combined with it in order to "increase contagion" and "increase lethality." Understand that neither Ebola or Smallpox has a 100% mortality rate; though Ebola is rather close. Anything less than that can certainly be improved if we're talking about a bioweapon; and as I said, it was also created to increase contagion; primarily airborne contagion.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Interesting posts. For starters, the days of using a filovirus as a weapon is near its end


Well, first off, many will tell you that filoviruses have never been weaponized in the first place. That's why I'm trying to find hard evidence that Ebola WAS weaponized by the Soviet Union or anyone else. I haven't yet succeeded in that field, besides what people a part of these biological programs claim.

Right now I'm just claiming that this sort of stuff is certainly possible; and that a suicide attacker could indeed use these if they had access to them somehow in the first place.


Originally posted by sdcigarpig
When he reaches the internation airport on the other end, after travelling across the atlantic, his body is now a biohazard hot spot. All he has to do is cough and sneeze on other people, and the nightmare begins.


My point exactly. In the case that someone HAS succeeded in not only weaponzing Ebola, but increasing its airborne contagion among humans, then the effects would be disastrous as I've said before on wherever that 'suicidal victim' went. Ebola is incredibly contagious, which is why it has killed entire African communities; though the myth says that it has never had a large-scale outbreak because it kills so fast that the victims don't have time to pass it on is a myth. It just generally can kill entire small communities.

I'm really looking for research or proof of Ebola's weaponized existence. The things they teach you in public high school about Ebola are EXTREMELY limited; they tell you that research about Ebola is so limited they don't know what it comes from, all attempts at any type of cure for it have failed, and that there is no record of it ever being weaponized.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
this was the plot of the the movie "outbreak"





where the Us Army’s Medical research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMARIID) finds out that there is a cure for a "similar to ebola" virus and the army has been hiding the fact b/c it could be used as a weapon



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Hey Omniscient, the only thing I can think of to help your research, is to launch an inquiry under the FOI act in whatever country you live in.

But don't hold yer breath waiting for a reply. My dear friend works at CMR Porton Down but she does not have access as there are restrictive levels of security in place there. I would imagine it would be the same at CDC in the US.

The problem with the Ebola virus scenario is, as I have already stated, that there is simply no way anybody could get hold of it in the first place. Read Tom Clancy to see just how difficult it would be - and that's just a super spy story.

Imagine the security round a village in Africa because I do believe that that is the only place that you would be able to acquire the virus for 'free'.

No microbiologist or lab scientist knowing Ebola the way he or she does, is willingly going to hand it over to a third party. Period.

Even when transferring samples from one lab to another, when they 'FedEx' it (joke), it is sent by courier. That is the weakest link in the chain but, how to you tell one sample box from the other, even if you manage to hijack the courier.

No my friend, this is the stuff of science fiction, spy books and James Bond movies.

I'll keep digging.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I understand your points fritz; but we're talking about governments here. Particularly the ones of the Soviet Union and the United States; they could probably find a way to get ahold of Ebola if they really wanted it. I'm just trying to leave the possibility wide open.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Yeah Mate, I know.

That is why, if you look at one of my earlier posts, you'll see that I posted that Ebola Retson was reported to the WHO/UN as there was an outbreak in the retson Lab in the USA.

Other than that, there is no possibility of anyone getting biological agents 'off the shelf'.

During my period as an Defence Nuclear Biological and Chemical Warfare instructor, I have seen some pretty remarkable films, seen some even more startling 'photos and slides, read countless documents and generally been overwhelmed (sometimes) by the sheer scope of the subject.

Biological agents and their Chemical counterparts, Toxins [biological agent derived from a chemical source] are so many in number that it would take many many months to list their characteristics, symptoms and treatments.

I intend to start a thread about chemical and biological agents, once my CMR sources have given me some gen.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz

Biological agents and their Chemical counterparts, Toxins [biological agent derived from a chemical source]


I thought a toxin was a poison derived from a biological source.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by fritz

Biological agents and their Chemical counterparts, Toxins [biological agent derived from a chemical source]


I thought a toxin was a poison derived from a biological source.


What? Somebody out there is taking notes? There's somebody out there who knows just a little bit more than Joe Soap?

Amazingly you're right. I wrote it the wrong way. I'm old, my eyes are dim and I cannot see. Apart from that, I'm loosing my marbles (not that I had many to start with in the first place!


Now, pay attention - I'm going to ask questions -



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
During my period as an Defence Nuclear Biological and Chemical Warfare instructor


Ah, you were a Nuclear Biological Chemical and Nuclear Warfare Defense instructor. Can you list some of the videos and documents that you might have read? I've been doing lots of research on biological and chemical weapons lately; would be cool to see some more information about them that isn't common among many sites.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient

Originally posted by fritz
During my period as an Defence Nuclear Biological and Chemical Warfare instructor


Ah, you were a Nuclear Biological Chemical and Nuclear Warfare Defense instructor. Can you list some of the videos and documents that you might have read? I've been doing lots of research on biological and chemical weapons lately; would be cool to see some more information about them that isn't common among many sites.


Sorry, my friend. Afraid not. Against the rules.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   


Ah, you were a Nuclear Biological Chemical and Nuclear Warfare Defense instructor. Can you list some of the videos and documents that you might have read? I've been doing lots of research on biological and chemical weapons lately; would be cool to see some more information about them that isn't common among many sites.


Go to www.iwmcollections.org.uk... and type Porton in the top left hand Search box. Then press Search, and hey presto .....a list of 161 CBW films; all available for public viewing at the Imperial War Museum, London. They are also available for purchase.

The list includes some very interesting footage of the UK's past CBW research.

Should the link not work, here's the list part 1.

DED 150
[AERIAL SMOKESCREEN TRIAL] GB 29/11/1929

DED 183
[BRITISH ARMY CHEMICAL WARFARE ARTILLERY EXERCISE] GB 1930 ca

DED 177
[BRITISH ARMY CHEMICAL WARFARE EXERCISE] GB 1932 ca

DED 151
[BRITISH ARMY CHEMICAL WARFARE EXERCISE] GB 1935 ca

DED 182
ATTACK OF TROOPS BY SPRAY FROM THE AIR GB 1935 ca

DED 152
[BRITISH ARMY CHEMICAL WARFARE EXERCISE] GB 6/1935

DED 153
[BRITISH ARMY CHEMICAL WARFARE SPRAY CONTAINER TRIALS] GB 1937

MAY 82
[BOMB 'F' TRIALS, BOSCOMBE AND PORTON, MARCH AND APRIL 1937] GB 3/1937 - 4/1937

MAY 91
[TOWED BOMB TRIALS, PORTON, 6 MAY 1937] GB 6/5/1937

DED 155
[AIRCRAFT SPRAY CONTAINER TRIALS] GB 10/11/1937

DED 154
[LIVENS PROJECTOR TRIALS] GB 18/11/1937 - 20/11/1937 - 22/11/1937 - 6/12/1937 - 13/6/1938 - 8/8/1938 - 24/1/1939

DED 181
[HOME OFFICE TRIALS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST PHOSGENE GAS] GB 1938

MAY 105
[TOWED BOMB TRIALS, PORTON, 23 MARCH 1938] GB 23/3/1938

DED 156
[BABY BASKET CONSTRUCTION] GB 7/10/1938

DED 157
[AERIAL SMOKE CURTAIN INSTALLATION TRIALS] GB 18/7/1938 - 19/7/1938 - 10/8/1938 - 13/1/1939 - 1940 ca

DED 159
[BOMB TRIALS AT PORTON DOWN] GB 1/12/1939 - 12/7/1940

MTE 309
TYPE 35 FUSE TRIALS PORTON GB 18/2/1939

MTE 308
SCATTER BOMBS PORTON GB 3/1939

MTE 385
BOMB STRIKER TRIALS PORTON GB 7/10/1939

DED 160
[CHEMICAL WARFARE SHELL EXPLOSIONS AT PORTON DOWN] GB 15/9/1939 - 3/7/1945 - 13/6/1946

DED 158
[BOMB TRIALS AT PORTON DOWN] GB 25/9/1939 - 1/12/1939 - 11/12/1939 - 12/7/1940

MTE 375
S BOMBS STRIKER TRIALS PORTON GB 30/9/1939

DED 179
[PORTON STAFF PASS PHOTOGRAPHS] GB 1940 ca

DED 180
[AERIAL SMOKE CURTAIN INSTALLATION TRIALS] GB 1940 ca

DED 192
[ITALIAN ARMY OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE CHEMICAL AND SMOKE EQUIPMENT] Italy 1940 ca

MTE 526
[250 LB SCI TYPE BOMB SL PORTON] GB 22/7/1940

DED 161
[CHEMICAL WEAPONS TRIALS AT PORTON DOWN] GB 27/12/1940 - 9/4/1941 - 17/4/1941

DED 38
[SUTTON OAK SAFETY FILM (INSTRUCTIONAL FILM WITH TITLES)] GB 1941

DED 41
[EUREKA LANDING APPROACH SYSTEM RAF] GB 1941

DED 168
[BOMB FUZE AND AERIAL SMOKE CURTAIN INSTALLATION TRIAL] GB 1/1941

MTE 658
PORTON 2000 LB BOMB DROP GB 1/4/1941

DED 162
[CHEMICAL WEAPONS TRIALS AT PORTON DOWN] GB 3/1/1941 - 6/1941 - 11/6/1941 - 4/7/1941 - 4/7/1941

DED 189
[CHEMICAL WEAPONS TRIALS AT PORTON DOWN] GB 18/3/1941

MTE 666
PORTON 2000 LB BOMB GB 23/4/1941

MTE 680
PORTON 2000 LB PARACHUTE BOMB GB 16/5/1941

DED 185
[CHEMICAL DEFENCE TRIALS AT PORTON DOWN] GB 6/1941 - 2/8/1941

DED 163
[SHELL TRIAL AT SHOEBURYNESS] GB 29/9/1941

DED 164
[CHEMICAL WARFARE SHELLS] GB 30/9/1941 - 8/1941

DED 165
[PRACTICE BAYONET CHARGE THROUGH SMOKE SCREEN] GB 14/10/1941

DED 166
[AERIAL JELLY BOMB TRIALS AGAINST TANK] GB 11/1941

DED 186
[REHEARSAL OF CHEMICAL WARFARE WEAPONS] GB 19/11/1941

DED 167
[SMOKE SCREEN AND ANTI-TANK WEAPONS TRIALS] GB 24/11/1941 - 8/4/1942 - 11/4/1942

POR 1
"X" BASE GRUINARD ISLAND TRIALS 1942-43 GB 1942 - 1943 - 1956 (revised)

DED 8
[MUSTARD AND LEWISITE BLISTERS ON OBSERVERS] GB 1942

DED 24
[BRITISH CHEMICAL WARFARE GAS AND SMOKE WEAPONS PART I] GB 1942

DED 9
[BRITISH CHEMICAL WARFARE GAS AND SMOKE WEAPONS PART II] GB 1942

DED 10
[BRITISH CHEMICAL WARFARE GAS AND SMOKE WEAPONS PART III] [ GB 1942

DED 17
[AUSTRALIAN MUSTARD GAS TRIALS] Australia 1942 ?

DED 191
[GERMAN ARMY GAS MASKS FOR DROMEDARIES AND CAMELS IN NORTH AFRICA] Germany 1942 ca

DED 169
[CHEMICAL WEAPONS TRIALS] GB 24/4/1942

DED 20
EXPERIMENT NO 27-D TRIAL II, 12TH MAY 1942 Canada 5/1942

DED 170
[EXPLOSION TRIALS] GB 14/7/1942

DED 47
the ASSESSMENT OF VESICANT INJURIES Australia 1943

DED 19
[VIII FIGHTER COMMAND OPERATIONS 4TH SERIES (USA) GUN CAMERA RECORD OF ATTACKS ON VARIOUS ENEMY AIRCRAFT AND SURFACE VESSELS] USA 1943



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join