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.

 

Tobacco, Oil and Bio-Terrorism

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
.

First, billions of dollars were spent on publicity campaigns to deny the science showing tobacco is dangerous.

Then, billions were spent to deny the science showing the destructive effects of greenhouse gases on the earth's climate, and global warming.

Billions more were spent to deny the scientific facts of evolution - and the ability of microbes to mutate, adapt and evolve.

SO:

IF the corporate-industrial machine can ignore science to justify profiting from tobacco-related deaths and destructive climate change,

THEN it is not a leap to recognise that they would ignore evolutionary science to justify biological weapons for use in economic conquest. Even when the science shows that microbes evolve, and would spread around the world.

It looks like H5N1 bird flu was genetically engineered and disseminated in China to destroy that nation's economy, and emerging role on the world stage. Now, bird flu is mutating, adapting and evolving - as are numerous other common microbes.

The evidence suggests that the key biological agent was genetically engineered in a way that allows it to cross species barriers, and genus and kingdom barriers too.

Maybe that was an accident. Just like the side-effects of tobacco and greenhouse gases were an accident.

Which is why the Denial Industry is pushing a phony debate about evolution. Just another cover-up.




.




posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   

It looks like H5N1 bird flu was genetically engineered and disseminated in China to destroy that nation's economy, and emerging role on the world stage. Now, bird flu is mutating, adapting and evolving - as are numerous other common microbes.

The evidence suggests that the key biological agent was genetically engineered in a way that allows it to cross species barriers, and genus and kingdom barriers too.




Sources? The first cases of avian flu were seen in Indonesia and Thailand among migratory birds, and the spread of the virus has matched migratory patterns causing the spread of the virus into Europe and Africa. How does this indicate that it was a purposefully virus to harm China?

I would think that if someone were intelligent enough to create such a virus, they would also be intelligent enough to create a virus which would not infect birds that regularly migrate to Europe.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

It looks like H5N1 bird flu was genetically engineered and disseminated in China to destroy that nation's economy, and emerging role on the world stage. Now, bird flu is mutating, adapting and evolving - as are numerous other common microbes.

The evidence suggests that the key biological agent was genetically engineered in a way that allows it to cross species barriers, and genus and kingdom barriers too.


The first cases of avian flu were seen in Indonesia and Thailand among migratory birds, and the spread of the virus has matched migratory patterns causing the spread of the virus into Europe and Africa.




You are misinformed. Your sources?

FYI - It is common knowledge that the first cases in human patients appeared in Hong Kong in 2003, purportedly imported from mainland China. The 2003 outbreaks started in China.

There is a media strategy to blame migratory birds for bird flu's spread - which is NOT supported by the science. Bird flu is spread via bodily fluids - and easily contaminates trade goods.

Virologists know (H5N1) infection occurs through contact with blood, feces and other body fluids, and WHO officials recently reiterated the flu virus is also airborne, posing even a greater threat than AIDS.



the entry of faeces from infected poultry into the food chain via fish was a likely cause of the global spread of bird flu - and not migrating wild birds.

'We are moving away from the assumption that migrating birds are the cause,' said Josef H. Reichholf, a zoology professor at Munich's Technical University, in a comment published by the newspaper Die Welt.

'We will have to live with bird flu in the future,' said Reichholf, adding: 'Perhaps we already have been for years and just didn't know it because ...dead birds ...were not tested.'

***

The virus may be spreading through contaminated feed, Munich-based ornithologist Josef Reichholf said, according to Focus magazine.

***

H5N1 9A ...severely attacks fish with particular virulence. The fish bones turn soft...





A GRAIN report:



The GRAIN report shows that emergence of bird flu follows the global poultry industry's movements - and NOT migratory bird movements.

Small-scale poultry farming and wild birds are being unfairly blamed for the bird flu crisis now affecting large parts of the world. A new report from GRAIN shows how the transnational poultry industry is the root of the problem and must be the focus of efforts to control the virus.[1]

The spread of industrial poultry production and trade networks has created ideal conditions for the emergence and transmission of lethal viruses like the H5N1 strain of bird flu. Once inside densely populated factory farms, viruses can rapidly become lethal and amplify. Air thick with viral load from infected farms is carried for kilometres, while integrated trade networks spread the disease through many carriers: live birds, day-old-chicks, meat, feathers, hatching eggs, eggs, chicken manure and animal feed.[2]

"Everyone is focused on migratory birds and backyard chickens as the problem," says Devlin Kuyek of GRAIN. "But they are not effective vectors of highly pathogenic bird flu. The virus kills them, but is unlikely to be spread by them."








How does this indicate that it was a purposefully virus to harm China?




The indications require critical and independent thinking, as well as an awareness of politicqal and economic reality. For example:



The major chicken factories such as Tyson Foods, Perdue Farms, ConAgra Poultry are making a propaganda campaign that, unlike in Asia where chickens are free to roam in the open, that their chickens are ‘safer’ because they are raised in closed facilities. A closer look inside those facilities is useful. ...Over the past three decades, American agriculture has been transformed so as to be almost unrecognizable. It is no longer dominated by small, carefully-run family farms producing some wheat, maybe corn, dairy and perhaps eggs and poultry fed and raised in a free-running farm area.

Today, thanks to a project launched in the late 1950’s by two Harvard Business School professors--Ray Goldberg and John Davis--production of food has become a concentrated, vertically integrated multinational business, which they named agribusiness. The criterion is no longer human food safety or quality. It is corporate profit. Nutrition has become a pure cost-benefit calculation of shareholder value, just as trading in stocks in a car company might be. ...The industrialization of chicken-raising and slaughtering in the USA, which is known as ‘factory farming’ is a process whose inner workings are unknown to most people. Better it remained so some say. Were we to know, we likely would never again eat a Chicken McNugget or a KFC chicken dinner, both of which are supplied, by the way, by Tyson.

Today, five giant multinational agribusiness companies dominate the production and processing of chicken meat in the United States, and, as things seem to be going, especially were the world to be looney enough to adopt genetically modified chickens supposedly resistant to Avian Flu virus, these five companies are about to dominate world chicken supply.







I would think that if someone were intelligent enough to create such a virus, they would also be intelligent enough to create a virus which would not infect birds that regularly migrate to Europe.






I would like to think that too. Unfortunately, biology just doesn't work that way.

But you've got the sound byte down pat.


.



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

the first cases in human patients appeared in Hong Kong in 2003, purportedly imported from mainland China. The 2003 outbreaks started in China.


You're right, my mistake. The first cases were in China in 1996.


There is a media strategy to blame migratory birds for bird flu's spread - which is NOT supported by the science. Bird flu is spread via bodily fluids - and easily contaminates trade goods.


Really? A quick PubMed search revealed several articles, most of them recent, which are contrary to what you suggest. They say that migratory birds seem to be able to readily become infected from domestic fowl.

www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/monitoring/pdf/hpai-centralasia020905.pdf
www.fao.org/ag/againfo/subjects/en/health/diseases-cards/migrationmap.html
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7048/abs/nature03974.html


Virologists know (H5N1) infection occurs through contact with blood, feces and other body fluids, and WHO officials recently reiterated the flu virus is also airborne, posing even a greater threat than AIDS.


Well, obviously it can be spread through fluid contact. Good luck finding many viruses which can't be spread in that fashion. However, you are horrendously misinformed on the WHO statements regarding the virus' airborn ability, as well as how it compares to AIDS. Here is a quote from the official WHO guidelines (Published April 2006) distributed to hospitals like the one I work at from the WHO themselves:

"As of the date of this document, no efficient human-to-human transmission of Al A (H5N1) is known to have ocurred, and there is no evidence to suggest airborne transmission from human to human"
www.who.int...

So, considering I have just provided you with a contrary statement from your own source, are you ready to admit to intellectual dishonesty, or did you simply mispeak?



the entry of faeces from infected poultry into the food chain via fish was a likely cause of the global spread of bird flu - and not migrating wild birds.


Now honestly, I know you're smarter than that. Let's take the leap together, no? Infected geese relieve themselves in a water source, the water source feeds into a river and infects fish, and then what eats the fish? Migratory birds. Was that a hard leap to make? Not exactly a leap of faith, more of logic.


The virus may be spreading thro]gh contaminated feed, Munich-based ornithologist Josef Reichholf said, according to Focus magazine.


Same leap as before. Have you ever been to a rural area? There's not a magical forcefield that keeps wild birds from snatching up feed a farmer throws to his geese and chickens. If a contaminated feed source is introduced in a pastoral environment, wild animals are just as likely to eat it as domesticated ones.




The GRAIN report shows that emergence of bird flu follows the global poultry industry's movements - and NOT migratory bird movements.


I see no reason why the virus shouldn't be following this pattern, as well as migratory patterns. You know it can affect more than one community, right? There's no reason whatsoever that it can't be spread by both domestic and wild birds, as it is very clear both group are easily infected.


The indications require critical and independent thinking, as well as an awareness of politicqal and economic reality


Thanks for the demeaning comment. Really adds credibilty to the rest of your post



For example:

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20051127&articleId=1333]The major chicken factories [...] EDITED BY ME FOR SPACEToday, five giant multinational agribusiness companies dominate the production and processing of chicken meat in the United States, and, as things seem to be going, especially were the world to be looney enough to adopt genetically modified chickens supposedly resistant to Avian Flu virus, these five companies are about to dominate world chicken supply.


Yes, because GlobalResearch.ca isn't a biased "news" source at all, huh? =P
Find a reliable, scientific or economic journal that suggests the similar and we'll talk.



I would like to think that too. Unfortunately, biology just doesn't work that way.


You don't think it would be easy to create a virus that targets a cell marker specific to chickens or geese? You haven't been in an undergraduate genetics laboratory post-1980, have you? We routinely made viral transfection agents that were strain-specific for our lab mice when I was a junior in undergraduate school.

Read that again. Not only did we make the virus specific for mice, but for a specific STRAIN of mouse. If you're HONESTLY telling me that a multi-billion dollar industrial giant doesn't have the technological know how to do what I did in a week without a bachelor's degree, then I honestly just don't know hwo to debate this with you, as you are in a different sphere of reality.

~Mariella

[edit on 11/20/2006 by bsl4doc]

[edit on 11/20/2006 by bsl4doc]

[edit on 11/20/2006 by bsl4doc]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

soficrow
It is common knowledge that the first cases in human patients appeared in Hong Kong in 2003



bsl4doc
The first cases were in China in 1996.


I'm kinda dense on the subject, but perhaps you two meant 1997?


1996 Highly pathogenic H5N1 virus is isolated from a farmed goose in Guangdong Province, China.

1997 Human infections with H5N1 are reported in Hong Kong. Altogether, 18 cases (6 fatal) are reported in the first known instance of human infection with this virus.

www.who.int...



In 1997, an outbreak of H5N1 HPAI involving three chicken flocks occurred in Hong Kong. The virus subsequently infected and caused serious disease in 18 humans, with six fatalities.6,7

Hong Kong–origin H5N1 Avian Influenza Virus



The Asian form of H5N1 infected eighteen people in Hong Kong, in 1997. This was the first time that H5N1 was shown to infect human beings.

A history of the Avian Influenza A/H5N1 strain





[size=blue] soficrow
a new report from GRAIN shows how the transnational poultry industry is the root of the problem and must be the focus of efforts to control the virus


This idea is new?



[Surveillance of the Hong Kong live poultry markets (LPMs) before the 1997–1998 poultry depopulation revealed that up to 20% of the chickens and 5% of the waterfowl maintained in LPMs harbored H5N1 AI viruses.

Vet Pathol 40:14-24 2003



Come on.
Your both some of the brightest minds here. I'm aware that you don't see eye to eye, but we count on you to do better than this. Give me some new (and accurate) input please. Gimme Gimme Gimme.


P.S.

I'm still not sure how this relates to Tobacco, and Oil? Global bioterrorism conspiracy? How are the 3 related? What connects them, and who is behind it? What is the denial industry? etc.



[edit on 11/20/06 by makeitso]



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   


I'm kinda dense on the subject, but perhaps you two meant 1997?


Yes, first human cases were in 1997, I was referring to first absolute cases, as in first appearance of the current H5N1. Sorry for the confusion. Good catch!




[size=blue] soficrow
a new report from GRAIN shows how the transnational poultry industry is the root of the problem and must be the focus of efforts to control the virus


This idea is new?


That's what I said when I read this =P. I agree that the problem is related to poultry farming methods, but I do NOT feel, as soficrow does, that this is some nefarious plot created in some Virology lab run by Tyson or some such company.


Come on, your both some of the brightest minds here. I'm aware that you don't see eye to eye, but we count on you to do better than this. Give me some new (and accurate) input please. Gimme Gimme Gimme.


Well, I think if you combine my input (accurate) and Soficrow's (new), you almost get what you want


hehe



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Origianally posted by bsl4doc

(by soficrow)
The GRAIN report shows that emergence of bird flu follows the global poultry industry's movements - and NOT migratory bird movements.


I see no reason why the virus shouldn't be following this pattern, as well as migratory patterns. You know it can affect more than one community, right? There's no reason whatsoever that it can't be spread by both domestic and wild birds, as it is very clear both group are easily infected.

One dead swan closes down the poultry industry of Nortern Europe. Two dead swans, economic disaster is just around the corner. Then it turns out none of them where affected with the dreaded virus. Birds die too from "natural" causes.

Said that not saying bird flu hasn't been found in migratory birds in Europe, but how few are they actually?

So far it has been avoided? (somebody correct me on this, if..) to slip into the highly protected farms of industrial poultry, which consist of populations bread for their ability to grow fast. Features that pay in the other end by weak bone structures and little or no immune resistence.

Sofi's grain link gives a very probably explanation as to why - much to my surprise - countries like Laos and Malaysia has not been affected. Industrialization is the killer more than the virus itself.

It makes common sense to me. Chickens bred for their commercial value will have lost faculties for surviving in the "wild". Protecting is weakening.

Living in SE Asian country I've often wondered why the local village chickens never were affected. Now I know, they are fit to survive. Industrial chicken are not.

Also in these links I find confirmation, that infected chicken faeces can pass on the virus to fish.

A commen practice in SE Asian poultry farming is combining it with fish breeding. The farms are build over ponds, with floors that allow the droppings to be passed on to the fish. Guten Appetit!!



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by makeitso

soficrow
It is common knowledge that the first cases in human patients appeared in Hong Kong in 2003



bsl4doc
The first cases were in China in 1996.


I'm kinda dense on the subject, but perhaps you two meant 1997?








Not. How embarrassing.

LOTS of brain burps lately. I have the flu. Really.






Come on.
Your both some of the brightest minds here. I'm aware that you don't see eye to eye, but we count on you to do better than this. Give me some new (and accurate) input please. Gimme Gimme Gimme.





O - we're off and on friendly. But sometimes we just seem to P each other right off.





I'm still not sure how this relates to Tobacco, and Oil? Global bioterrorism conspiracy? How are the 3 related? What connects them, and who is behind it? What is the denial industry? etc.




The denial industry.

I just saw a TV special on the 'denial industry' - so-called scientists funded by the tobacco and oil industries to create a synthetic debate and question industry-damaging science.

Turns out key scientists like Fred Singer are "experts" that sympathize with industry in both campaigns, and collect funds for their statements. APCO is a marketing and PR company that funded pro-industry research in both the tobacco and anti-global warming campaigns. The list goes on.

The 'denial industry' special deconstructed both the tobacco and climate change campaigns - showed how NO legitimate scientists actually disagreed with findings showing smoke and carbon emissions are harmful - and how media was pressured to give credence to pro-industry junk science.

...I realized a similar publicity campaign surrounds epidemics/outbreaks like e. coli and bird flu - and it's mainly about hiding the harm caused by industrial farming practices.

Also realized that contrary to my longstanding position, H5N1 bird flu really is the perfect agricultural bioweapon - and has evolved and spread as a bioweapon might do.

Started trying to develop the hypothesis, got sick and stupid, choked.


BUT - there is a good, solid theory buried here. ...If I can stop bsdoc from derailing its development.


Ah. I love ya all. Just need a good sleep.


PS. bsdoc - re targeting species in genetic engineering. Do some searching on actin, specifically beta actin, a-actin, cytoskeleton. Cross reference with fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, tissue remodeling. Esp note article: "Actin' Like Actin."

Point here - actin is the key that can opens doors to any cell in any lifeform on earth - and very funny things are happening with actin that transcend genetic barriers. Beyond RNA interference.


.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   

PS. bsdoc - re targeting species in genetic engineering. Do some searching on actin, specifically beta actin, a-actin, cytoskeleton. Cross reference with fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, tissue remodeling. Esp note article: "Actin' Like Actin."

Point here - actin is the key that can opens doors to any cell in any lifeform on earth - and very funny things are happening with actin that transcend genetic barriers. Beyond RNA interference.


I'm well aware of actin, as well as fibroblasts, etc etc. However, you are not taking into account that this is NOT how viral vectors work Please, research viral attachment, paying special attention to species specific cluster designation marker, or CD markers. THOSE are the key to transfection agents. I promise you, it is entirely possible to create a virus specific for one strain of one chicken species in less than a week in a genetics laboratory with little to no chance of cross-infecting other domestic birds.

~Mariella



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

PS. bsdoc - re targeting species in genetic engineering. Do some searching on actin, specifically beta actin, a-actin, cytoskeleton. Cross reference with fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, tissue remodeling. Esp note article: "Actin' Like Actin."

Point here - actin is the key that can opens doors to any cell in any lifeform on earth - and very funny things are happening with actin that transcend genetic barriers. Beyond RNA interference.


I'm well aware of actin, as well as fibroblasts, etc etc. However, you are not taking into account that this is NOT how viral vectors work Please, research viral attachment, paying special attention to species specific cluster designation marker, or CD markers. THOSE are the key to transfection agents. I promise you, it is entirely possible to create a virus specific for one strain of one chicken species in less than a week in a genetics laboratory with little to no chance of cross-infecting other domestic birds.




I have no doubt that "it is entirely possible to create a virus specific for one strain of one chicken species in less than a week in a genetics laboratory with little to no chance of cross-infecting other domestic birds."

I also have no doubt that it is entirely possible for such a creation to mutate. A fact that eager-beaver tinkerers such as yourself tend to ignore.

Therein lies the problem.

Also - You are not taking into account the fact that proteins hitchhike on viruses - in nature, as well as in the lab - and that the potential effects are more than significant.


.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Overall, I agree with your speculations -- profit above all else, including life itself.

Oftentimes, I find myself asking: So, why won't they do that? (produce engines that run off of water, work towards cleaning up the messes, et cetera; anything that is *good* for everyone)
The answer is always (or seems to be) - Because it's not profitable.



Originally posted by soficrow
First, billions of dollars were spent on publicity campaigns to deny the science showing tobacco is dangerous.


I fully admit that I live under a rock, but this is the first that I've heard of campaigns to deny the dangers of tobacco.. In fact, I had to dig deep to find 1 website showing the benefits of smoking (for another thread).

Truly, it's a game of semantics, because if the campaigns show tobacco to be dangerous or not, they are still going to profit. (I still have a hard time believing that my smoking is thee only reason for any lung cancer that I might get.. there's too much crap in the air to point to one single cause)

And so long as they profit, that's all that they care about. *sigh*

So sad that a piece of paper that humanity created is now worth more than humanity itself.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   


I also have no doubt that it is entirely possible for such a creation to mutate. A fact that eager-beaver tinkerers such as yourself tend to ignore.

Therein lies the problem.


If we are to assume this virus were created - which it wasn't - as early as the 1980s and in twenty years time was able to mutate from a specifically fowl-infecting virus into one that can also infect humans, you are looking at a world record for mutation, as the CD markers for humans are DRASTICALLY different than those of humans. I really think you need to get the science of this down before you suggest such radical dieas, most of which are BARELY in the realm of science fiction.


Also - You are not taking into account the fact that proteins hitchhike on viruses - in nature, as well as in the lab - and that the potential effects are more than significant.


I'm well aware of this fact, but you also need to be aware of the fact that these are proteins, not genes. If one viral particle in 1,000,000 present in a drop of blood picks up a molecular motor protein hitchhiker (one of the more common protein 'hitchhikers'), it will not be able to internalize the protein, denature it into amino acids, reverse transcribe it, and internalize the code. Basically, it's progeny will NOT exhbit this protein.

As mentioned earlier, get the science down first, make assumptions later.

Also, I'm extremely curious as to why you haven't addressed my response to your supposed WHO statement regardign airborne ability and the comparison to AIDS. Is this because you have been caught in a lie?

~Mariella

[edit on 11/21/2006 by bsl4doc]



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc


I also have no doubt that it is entirely possible for such a creation to mutate. A fact that eager-beaver tinkerers such as yourself tend to ignore.

Therein lies the problem.


If we are to assume this virus were created - which it wasn't -






If I had any doubts remaining about the validity of this speculation, your rabid attacks have erased them completely.

Enter Fred Singer.







I'm extremely curious as to why you haven't addressed my response to your supposed WHO statement regardign airborne ability and the comparison to AIDS.




The link is there - but you need to actually click on it.


Virologists know infection occurs through contact with blood, feces and other body fluids, and WHO officials recently reiterated the flu virus is also airborne, posing even a greater threat than AIDS.





Is this because you have been caught in a lie?




I have no reason to lie.

You on the other hand appear to have a great deal invested in defending industry, right or wrong.

As I mentioned on another thread, your "contributions" play exactly like Fred Singer defending the tobacco and oil industries.


.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria


Originally posted by soficrow
First, billions of dollars were spent on publicity campaigns to deny the science showing tobacco is dangerous.


I fully admit that I live under a rock, but this is the first that I've heard of campaigns to deny the dangers of tobacco.. In fact, I had to dig deep to find 1 website showing the benefits of smoking (for another thread).






You must live under a rock! ...It's old news now, but the lies and propaganda go back half a century. Grisham brought the game to the public eye with a book - but the key issue became gun control (!) in the movie.





(I still have a hard time believing that my smoking is thee only reason for any lung cancer that I might get.. there's too much crap in the air to point to one single cause)




Smoking is VERY bad. No doubt about it.

But you're right - there is NOT one single cause for lung cancer, or any of the other new epidemic lung diseases either. Modern diseases are multifactorial - and focusing on smoking - one factor among tens of thousands - is a truly sleazy way to blame the victims, and offload accountability.





posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

If I had any doubts remaining about the validity of this speculation, your rabid attacks have erased them completely.


Please explain how my questioning your scientific background is somehow propaganda.

I'm telling you that you are not taking into account CD markers, which are the keystone component in cell to cell communication. If you don;t understand that someone with two degrees in hard science may, in fact, know a bit more on this than you, I just don't see the point in arguing with you. You are hard headed, ignorant, and unwilling to admit fault.


The link is there - but you need to actually click on it.


I did click on it you condescending ass, and you take the quote massively out of context. He is talking about the human flu virus, and he says it is more deadly than AIDS due to it's ability to infect anyone regardless of lifestyle, whereas AIDS is contracted in very specific ways. No where does he make the connection between AIDS and avian flu, and a great deal of this section of the article is about human flu, and doesn't even mention avian flu.

Learn to read your own sources.


I have no reason to lie.

You on the other hand appear to have a great deal invested in defending industry, right or wrong.

As I mentioned on another thread, your "contributions" play exactly like Fred Singer defending the tobacco and oil industries.


And your contribution play a lot like George W. Bush: based on half-truths, bad intelligence, and unchanging despite new information.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

you condescending ass,







As do other professional "debunkers" in the Denial Industry, bsdoc relies on insults to destroy others' credibility, and on misrepresenting data as well as others' positions and opinions.

A dead giveaway regarding strategy, intent - and affiliation.


As I mentioned earlier, bsdoc's "contributions" play exactly like Fred Singer defending the tobacco and oil industries.


BACK TO TOPIC


The idea that bird flu might be an agricultural bioweapon gone out of control was put forward as speculation.

The undue attention garnered from bsdoc, one of our local industry sympathizers and so-called "debunkers," confirms that the speculation has a great deal of merit.


Defenders of bioweapons development and unregulated biotech, like bsdoc, want us to believe that engineered viruses act exactly the same way in our great big contaminated world as they do in sterile controlled laboratories.

They want us to think that engineered viruses are somehow immune to the genetic effects of exposure to new factors, outside the lab, when they're loose in the world.




Ah, no.

Genetically engineered viruses are indeed subject to the "forces of nature" - and mutate after they're released.







sp

[edit on 22-11-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
BACK TO TOPIC


The idea that bird flu might be an agricultural bioweapon gone out of control was put forward as speculation.


thinking about that some,

perhaps maybe that's why, about last year, there was a rash of untimely deaths
of micro-biologists around the US...if i recall there was a CT aura around the +50
highly regarded scientists turning up dead and sometimes strange circumstances.

it might be that the bioweapon (bird flu) broke out of the 'containment' the scientists guaranteed.
With the highly paid scientists promiseing control over a birdflu epidemic, and with their guarantees that birdflu could be directed to bring chaos to regional or national food chains targeting only specific fowl...
the money & control freak Eliteists went ahead and funded the bioweapon projects which became 'bird flu'...

When it became obvious that the bioweapon became dangerous and beyond the designed 'control' system...with no immunization or antidote available to the Elites themselves, who now became potential victims of a run-away bioweapon along with their own children and heirs.....................Then !!
The sudden 'neutralizing' of many of these scientists/ engineers was the 'Pay Back' the cabal of elite globalists exacted on the know-it-all genetic engineers/bioweapons creators.

The unexpected happened, the failsafes and control-rods became ineffective in directing 'birdflu' against the far east region...



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio

Originally posted by soficrow
BACK TO TOPIC


The idea that bird flu might be an agricultural bioweapon gone out of control was put forward as speculation.


thinking about that some,

perhaps maybe that's why, about last year, there was a rash of untimely deaths
of micro-biologists around the US...if i recall there was a CT aura around the +50
highly regarded scientists turning up dead and sometimes strange circumstances.




Uh huh. The thought crossed my mind too.






it might be that the bioweapon (bird flu) broke out of the 'containment' the scientists guaranteed.

...The unexpected happened, the failsafes and control-rods became ineffective in directing 'birdflu' against the far east region...




FYI - we're learning more every day about what causes mutation, and how it works. ...There is no doubt that various contaminants polluting our air, soil, and water trigger mutations, and speed the evolutionary process.

The same factors affect natural and GM organisms. In fact, common biotech methods result from scientists trying to copy natural processes.

Here's a good primer:




How chemicals can speed up evolution

THE mystery of how human DNA evolves during someone's lifetime looks a step closer to being solved.

Researchers in Japan have found evidence that environmental agents that cause chemical changes to our DNA throughout life may increase the amount of shuffling and mutation that occurs within our DNA during the formation of egg and sperm cells. So exposure of our DNA to reactive chemicals may actually drive evolution by promoting genetic diversity in our children.

Yusaku Nakabeppu and his colleagues at Kyushu University in Fukuoka have shown that, if unrepaired by enzymes, a type of chemical damage called oxidation can reshuffle DNA's four basic building blocks - adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine.





Pollution causes mutations and speeds evolution.

Not a good thing - especially when microbes reproduce and evolve billions of times faster than people.


.
sp




[edit on 22-11-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Pollution causes mutations and speeds evolution.

Not a good thing - especially when microbes reproduce and evolve billions of times faster than people.


However (playing devil's advocate for a moment), it's not necessarily a bad thing either. Depending on what happens to the planet, these mutations may very well help us. Besides that, evolution created us out of apes.. (arguably, that may not be a good thing, considering the route that the human race has taken....)

Have we heard anything on what mutations/evolutionary steps have been caused by pollution? That might help in determining which side of the scale these mutations are located..



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diseria

Originally posted by soficrow
Pollution causes mutations and speeds evolution.

Not a good thing - especially when microbes reproduce and evolve billions of times faster than people.


However (playing devil's advocate for a moment), it's not necessarily a bad thing either. Depending on what happens to the planet, these mutations may very well help us.




Quite true. Many diseases caused by mutations actually confer immunity to even worse diseases...

BUT. It's just common sense to slow down and stop adding even more crap to our environment - just to give us time to adapt, and maybe catch up with the microbes.






Have we heard anything on what mutations/evolutionary steps have been caused by pollution? That might help in determining which side of the scale these mutations are located..



A lot of nasty diseases - and the denial industry is fighting tooth and nail to dismiss the links.



IMO - Focusing on adaptation and evolution is our best hope. But counting on it is pretty stupid.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join