"Rage" Virus

As for drugs... PCP is pretty terrifying. Drives people nuts, they get terrfied and their body lfloods with adrenaline, so they're stonger. They'd keep going if you do anything les than kill them to.

maybe they can run fast because they have little reason left. Getting tired is a reasoning skill, so maybe that's why they can go massive distances in great speed.

I think the creation of anything is possible, but likely is different. Creating something like a rage virus is probably not going to happen though. I could see something that affects dopamine and seretonin being created by man easy enough (which they have), something airborne might be hard, but could probably be done. I mean look at all the meds man had made that effect the brain.

Creating a drug that suppresses the chemical actions in the brain, I am sure is not an easy task. To repress the chemicals in our minds would see to be the goal. Would they be able to create a drug that makes our logical mind not work? I say that because once the logical mind is removed then we are left with only our animal instincts, but I don't know if that would make us all rage.

Chinese government is rumoured to work on bacteriological weapon, a RNA type of virus, where ribonucleic acid is enclosed into an albunim-lipidic shell.

The whole cycle of penetration through spit lasts two hours, although phenotypic manifestation of DNA changes would display within days.

reply to post by bsl4doc

as soon as the virus got to your heart the virus could have an adrenilene effect causing the virus to go through ur bodys entire system in under a minute and if some one were to start messing with viruses that have any thing like meningites in it the "infected" would probably go mad try to kill any one or any thing not infected and it could probably cause a certin fermone to go through your sweat gland and an infected persons brain would no the smell( just like when some on does a certin drug the smell of that drug comes out through sweat glands) and they would no not to attack. the whole entire concept of 28 weeks later is entierly possible and a virus could already exist just very well contained by are goverment which they are more then capable of doing and the virus would be used for war of course, and the goverment would probably invent a second virus that would go around killing any one with the first virus. it would be a perfect war, the enemy is disorginized, attacking eachother, and unable to opperate complicated maybe even simple divices ( guns,bombs, gas masks)

What about Nanobots.
I heard that within a decade there will be nanobots small enough to enter the brain and fix damages.
Yhere is already a nano-cyborg.
nanotechnology sounds like a bad idea.
i would love to see a reply to this from someone that is well educated.

Personally, I don't think we need a virus. All they have to do is create a scenario where vast numbers of people just can't cope anymore.

I work with the public, and everyone in my office has commented on the increase in :the broken people", usually manifesting in unwarranted rage (for some reason, taken out on us quite frequently).

We are living in times that are causing ever increasing despair and rage in people, and quite frankly it worries me. First we created a world where there was a sense of self centered entitlement, and now that is all falling apart. I'm seeing two to three generations of people who can't deal with what is happening now. People who had a decent job and family life that is currently coming apart at the seams. We have actually started a policy where if one of the clients is on the phone (and many of these people have been pleasant and dealing with us for years) we hang up if they become abusive without warrant. There is no longer anything we can say to get the to clam down and be rational. all we can do is send them the message that we aren't going to take it anymore. Some now literally call and spew their venom, then just hang up before we do. I won't even get into the "walk-ins" of the "broken people", especially the ones that have totally snapped, and though their anger is not cuased by us or our actions, they can't help threatening anyone they can find to take it out on.

It's not a virus, but it's something, and it's chipping away at society little by little, and it is spreading.

Hey there OP, I havent' seen that movie but let me give you my .02 on this virus:

A few Specs on the Rage Virus

-Spreads is 20 seconds
-Increases Speed and Strength Dramatically
- Infection can be spread from a single drop of blood
- Grants the victim ability to sense a non infected nearby
-Pain doesnt seem to be an issue

Now I don't know if you mean spread in the sense of how quickly the virus is spread or its incubation period.

A virus spreads at different speeds depending on its vector. One that is transmitted by body fluids could jump from person to person instantly if they share body fluids directly, like kissing, having sex, or something more disgusting like coughing into someone's eye.

A virus can be spread indirectly from person to person in cases where someone drinks after an infected person, shares a needly with them, or gets their body fluids on their hands and then touches one of their mucos membranes--this is the normal entry point for viruses. This may be a delayed infection, though different viruses vary as to how long and in what conditions they can stay alive outside a vector.

Other virus are carried by a vector other than humans--such as mosquitos, birds, or rodents. A good example of this is the Black Plague, (although that was actually a bacteria)which was primarily spread by fleas and rats. If the particular vector does not actually become infected to the point of incapacitation by whatever virus they carry, it could take days or weeks for the viruses to travel.

Viruses also have an incubation period. This is the length of time it takes the virus to multiply within its hos to the point that it overwhelmes the immune system enough to create notible symptoms. Usually this takes between 3 days and 2 weeks. It's not possible to have a virus infect a person and show symptoms immediately--it has to have time to multiply itself.

In theory I suppose a virus could inhibit someone's pain inhibition, if it attacks the brain or the nervous system, but I haven't actually heard of one that does this.

Likewise a virus could in theory make a person very strong or fast, but if the person was that infected, I don't think they'd have the coherence left to act according to their own will. It'd be like someone in the throes of an epeleptic seizure, who might move quickly and strike at something with tremendous speed but really doesn't have it together to perform any actions.

Rabies is a good example of this. The virus attacks the brain and nervous system, causing the victim to become agitated and combative--in the interest of biting or scratching another mammal, thus spreading the disease. Victims feel pain, but the virus causes them to move around despite that. (Rabies is the closest disease to true blue zombism IMO.)

I'm not sure about any virus that can "sense" a non-infected... though as I've just detailed, there are ways that microorganims make their hosts more likely to infect someone else.

I hope that helps.


fixed link



[edit on 12/3/2008 by Badge01]

reply to post by bsl4doc


The pheremone that the infected are attracted to was perfumes apparently. (according To Wiki)

reply to post by Apokolypse


1.) It is not only possible, there are probably worse variants than science fiction approaches would contend.

2.) It is unlikely due to blowback on the elite.

3.) On the other hand if the elite wants blowback, due to a desperate situation, it may choose it by thinking "If I can't have the entire world in slavery and serfdom, and they are attacking us to ruin our plans and restore their freedoms, then no one can, and no one will oppose us." That is of course the typical disgruntled lover statement.

reply to post by Apokolypse



not sure if there is a virus as such but im sure you would find out 20 seconds to late
however id volunteer to be vacinated first

Simple question... Why spend all the time, money, and effort on creating a rage virus when a simple weaponized smallpox virus would not only be easier and cheaper, but likely much more deadly. The disadvantage to enginnering something that affects you in a short period of time is simple. You don't have enough time to transmit the virus to others. A latency period of 10-14 days where the virus shows no symptoms, but is infectious, would kill many more people than one that is faster acting.

Just my thoughts.

about the movies...
is 28 days later or 28 weeks later better?

I wouldnt doubt it if movies like "28 days later" or "blindness" were to happen in real life.

i highly doubt the government is THAT evil... but ya never know!

if it the virus was real and happened to break out the U.S.ARMY will probably kill everyone n the "HOT ZONE"

reply to post by calihan123


Who's to say it would happen on purpose? I remember an old Sliders episode where it started off as a diet pill that had the unfortunate side effect of creating a never-ending hunger for fat. They weren't rage zombies, but they were zombies nonetheless.

It's actually one of those irrational fears I have about the "end of the world" - that something that initially appears to be benign turns out to be the doom of us all.

Originally posted by Byrd
I think sitting them down and making them watch twenty weeks of American Idol reruns should do it. They'd be in a stupor after five hours and intert after a day.

Best laugh Ive had on ATS for a while

And Byrd thanks I never knew that Rabies could lie dormant for quite soo long, and the Tarentella Dancing Plague I was unaware of, surprised I missed that. Two new things I have learned today thanks!

Yourself also if you have the time and furthermore:

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Honestly, and this comes from someone who has a degree in molecular genetics and virology and who has hundreds of hours of research in genetics logged

What is your take on the HIV/AIDS issue especially in regard to:

Michael Fumento, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. Fumento's book summarized evidence gathered by various scientists to the affect that there never was, nor is, a "Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic" taking place, either in the USA or overseas. Fumento documented how the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had doctored the epidemiological data, unscientifically "adjusting" it here and there, in order to have it support a previously formulated and "politically correct" conclusion: that everyone, including relatively monogamous heterosexuals, and even non-drug-using heterosexual teenagers, were "at risk for AIDS". Fumento's criticism of this position was attacked even before the ink was dry, and his book was suppressed and sabotaged both by national book distributors, and by his publisher, who came under attack by homosexual activist groups. Fumento himself lost his job, and was subject to harassment and death threats by these same groups, who -- as demonstrated in his book -- have glaring sex-political agendas and economic motivations.

And Further the other noted scientist:

Dr. Peter Duesberg, a pioneer in retrovirus research and Professor of Cell Biology at the University of California, in Berkeley. Duesberg is a top-notch scientist who has brought forth important criticism of the HIV hypothesis of AIDS to the podium of science. His research findings came to my attention around 1990, demonstrating that AIDS cannot be caused by HIV (or any other virus) and therefore is, as the term "AIDS" originally implied, an acquired, non-infectious immune system deficiency. Duesberg's most recent 77-page paper on the subject appeared in a British research journal (Pharmac. Ther., 55:201-277, 1992), and contains 17 pages of citations to the published scientific and medical literature.

Source

Who was also backed up by James DeMeo, Ph.D. and many others?

I know its slightly of topic but I am really interested in your veiws to see the wood from the trees as such.

Furthermore if there is such a glaringly large misunderstanding of one of the most studied Virus in History probably, I dare so besides the Cold/Influenza Virus. Can we then be so sure what is possible with a really weaponised or extremely mutated Virus?

Especially if also the Panspermia hypothesis is correct and maybe could contribute to an already mutated Virus...

Just some thoughts, and really appreciative of your guys wisdom and knowledge of this area.

Kind regards

Elf.


[edit on 3-12-2008 by MischeviousElf]

Well could Rabies mutate by itself so that it could infect the host faster and pretty much turn them into a zombie? Or if not by itself, then by man? Because IMHO I think the closest we have to the zombie virus is Rabies. It'd just need a way to infect humans faster and not kill them after it took control.

Also, its a virus right? So it probably could sniff out which other people were infected, because I saw a couple dogs once with rabies hanging out with each other and would attack everything else but each other. My grandfather took them both out though before they could infect anything else. And because it's a virus it'd wanna spread itself so that's why it'd lash out and try to bite people, to further spread itself.

Yes I know I don't know a lot about this stuff so I'm probably a little off, but I've been reading up a lot recently on this stuff because It's pretty cool.