US wants to buy HIGHLY LETHAL VIRUS from Germany

page: 3
47
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymouth
 


You might want to read the cable I posted above..




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
Are you guys all BLIND? Don´t you see what this means? This means that all those horrible viruses plaguing the world over the last few years was actually MADE by the goverment! This was their "Test zones", with expendable humans in Zaire(EBOLA) for example.

And you guys are worried what will happen? Give me a break. This is beyond evil.



It actually surprises me that there are still people who think this is all natural...



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Of course I can not be sure that the U.S. Army asked for it. But it seems like it



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


I am still thinking about that missing seal.
This could be the key.
What if some high ranking US soldier had been captured somewhere,and some bad guys forced him to give up security codes.
Maybe they had his family or something.

But the missing seal is his way of alerting the authorities?
Who knows.The whole thing sounds well dodgy IMO.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
reply to post by Hellas
 


I am still thinking about that missing seal.
This could be the key.
What if some high ranking US soldier had been captured somewhere,and some bad guys forced him to give up security codes.
Maybe they had his family or something.

But the missing seal is his way of alerting the authorities?
Who knows.The whole thing sounds well dodgy IMO.


The whole point is that somebody may have gotten those viruses now, because there is no way of finding out if Germany has sent them out.

The cable is dated 2010!



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I also have found another cable that has to do with the Australian Group (AG). I don't really know who they are and what they do. This is the first time I heard of them.

In this one they are talking about chemical warfare agents and what is needed to manufacture them!!!

Excerpts of the cable:



(SBU) The manufacturing process for many chemical warfare agents can be extremely caustic, requiring equipment that is made of specialized corrosion and heat-resistant materials. To help limit the proliferation of chemical weapons, the 40-country AG has agreed to require government permission for exports of this specialized chemical production equipment.




(SBU) To prepare for such an event, we are proposing that AG participants assemble a group of experts to consider advances in micro-reactor technology as they relate to chemical weapons proliferation and potential steps the AG could take to address the issue.


Whole Cable



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
well even if the army was going to get the virus maybe its just protection so no one could go after it to use against us that is aa big thought, but if the asking came from our military itself then i have no want or need to believe it is for research



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Beavers
 


Good god man, thanks for the nightmares tonight.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas
In another cable it says:




A German firm has applied for the approval of the export of 184 genetic elements with nucleic acid sequences of viruses for the production of recombinant viruses. The viruses will be used in optical imaging to identify host factors required for viral replication. The recipient in the USA is, according to the enclosed end use certificate, the Department of the Army "US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)" Fort Detrick, Maryland. Specifications in English about the goods, the recipient and end use can be seen from the end use certificate. The goods are controlled by the Australia Group and are subject to compulsory export approval (List position C1C353A). This matter concerns the complete genome of viruses such as the Zaire Ebola virus, the Lake Victoria Marburg virus, the Machupo virus and the Lassa virus, which are absolutely among the most dangerous pathogens in the world. The delivery would place the recipient in the position of being able to create replicating recombinant infectious species of these viruses.



Cable


Don't mean to burst your bubble, but I seriously question the validity of the document. First off, it doesn't state years of the viruses.

So with regards to Ebola, which one is it from Zaire that Germany allegedly has? Was it 1976 Zaire (Yambuku)? Was it 1977 Zaire (Tandala, Bonduni)? Was it 1995 Democratic Rep. of Congo (Kikwit, Sala, Ambura, Vengo, Yasa, Kizamba, Mosango, Rulutsgu, Dua, Ndobo, Nasama, Kinsomi, Kimpulu Zaeke, Mungai, Mazinga, Kipuka, Kinko, Mukinka)? Was it 2007 Democratic Rep. of Congo (Kasai Occidental)? Was it 2008 Democratic Rep. of Congo (SW Kasai Province)?

Which Ebola is it that allegedly the German government has?

Then with Marburg...the document you present really doesn't make sense. The document claims Marburg from Victoria's Cave (which would be in Kenya). So was it 1980 or 1987 that Germany allegedly has (Kenya-Mount Elgon National Park-Kitum Cave, Victoria Cave)?

The oddity is that the 3rd Marburg from Victoria Cave would actually be in the hands of the Netherlands government and not in Germany at all. It was a hiker in 2008 that brought back Marburg to the Netherlands and died in the Netherlands. Germany wouldn't even have it unless the Netherlands gave it to them or they stole it.

The one that is definitely in the hands of the German government is the 1967 Marburg, for which the virus was named as it was accidentally brought back to Marburg (city) in Germany. But that comes from Uganda and not Kenya's Victoria Cave.

So the document you present makes no sense. I question the validity.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MapMistress

Originally posted by Hellas
In another cable it says:




A German firm has applied for the approval of the export of 184 genetic elements with nucleic acid sequences of viruses for the production of recombinant viruses. The viruses will be used in optical imaging to identify host factors required for viral replication. The recipient in the USA is, according to the enclosed end use certificate, the Department of the Army "US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)" Fort Detrick, Maryland. Specifications in English about the goods, the recipient and end use can be seen from the end use certificate. The goods are controlled by the Australia Group and are subject to compulsory export approval (List position C1C353A). This matter concerns the complete genome of viruses such as the Zaire Ebola virus, the Lake Victoria Marburg virus, the Machupo virus and the Lassa virus, which are absolutely among the most dangerous pathogens in the world. The delivery would place the recipient in the position of being able to create replicating recombinant infectious species of these viruses.



Cable


Don't mean to burst your bubble, but I seriously question the validity of the document. First off, it doesn't state years of the viruses.

So with regards to Ebola, which one is it from Zaire that Germany allegedly has? Was it 1976 Zaire (Yambuku)? Was it 1977 Zaire (Tandala, Bonduni)? Was it 1995 Democratic Rep. of Congo (Kikwit, Sala, Ambura, Vengo, Yasa, Kizamba, Mosango, Rulutsgu, Dua, Ndobo, Nasama, Kinsomi, Kimpulu Zaeke, Mungai, Mazinga, Kipuka, Kinko, Mukinka)? Was it 2007 Democratic Rep. of Congo (Kasai Occidental)? Was it 2008 Democratic Rep. of Congo (SW Kasai Province)?

Which Ebola is it that allegedly the German government has?

Then with Marburg...the document you present really doesn't make sense. The document claims Marburg from Victoria's Cave (which would be in Kenya). So was it 1980 or 1987 that Germany allegedly has (Kenya-Mount Elgon National Park-Kitum Cave, Victoria Cave)?

The oddity is that the 3rd Marburg from Victoria Cave would actually be in the hands of the Netherlands government and not in Germany at all. It was a hiker in 2008 that brought back Marburg to the Netherlands and died in the Netherlands. Germany wouldn't even have it unless the Netherlands gave it to them or they stole it.

The one that is definitely in the hands of the German government is the 1967 Marburg, for which the virus was named as it was accidentally brought back to Marburg (city) in Germany. But that comes from Uganda and not Kenya's Victoria Cave.

So the document you present makes no sense. I question the validity.



So you're saying that just because it is out of your knowledge that Germany has those viruses it can't be legit? This is a cable from the embassy not some stuff I made up.

The best thing that could happen for the gov. written about is to prove Wikileaks a fake.

And what about the ebola virus date? What does that have to do with anything?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas
So you're saying that just because it is out of your knowledge that Germany has those viruses it can't be legit? This is a cable from the embassy not some stuff I made up.

The best thing that could happen for the gov. written about is to prove Wikileaks a fake.

And what about the ebola virus date? What does that have to do with anything?


I guess you don't understand about the dates. Whenever talking about viruses, if it is scientists or doctors they ALWAYS name the year date. So if someone were really attempting to acquire (buy or sell) a virus, they would 1) name the virus 2) name the region of location of the virus 3) name how many cases 4) name the year.

Think of it like flu viruses. For example, this year's flu vaccines include:
Influenza A/California/7/2009 H1N1-like
A/Perth/16/2009 H3N2-like
B/Brisbane/60/2008-like

If someone were buying or selling Marburg or Ebola or any virus for that matter, they'd name the virus, the region-location of the virus, how many cases AND THE YEAR. I'm not seeing the year named in the alleged Wikileaks document which makes me question the validity. They would always name the year.

There's so many possible here...so take a look at the below map of Marburg and Ebola Outbreaks from 1967-2009.



The document in question only states the name of virus and region. No years. So which ones? There's a lot of Zaire (which is Democratic Republic of the Congo). And the Marburg one makes no sense whatsoever. The one Marburg virus which is definitely in possession of the German government was Marburg 1967 from Uganda. That was how the virus was named because it went from Uganda to Marburg (the city in Germany) and Frankfort. But that Wikileaks document contends Marburg from Victoria Cave which is not in Uganda, but rather Kenya. And there's three year dates for that outbreak, one in the Netherlands and never an epidemic in Kenya-Victoria Cave itself--but rather imported by a hiker directly into the Netherlands.

All the countries in question in Africa--none of them were German. At the end of WWII, Germany had no colonies left in Africa. They were either given to France or the UK. The Congo used to belong to Belgium. Angola used to belong to Portugal. Now, the old German possessions from the 1800s or colonial times were Togoland (which included Ghana, Togo and Benin) in 1884, Cameroon in 1884 given to French WWII. Namibia which was part of South Africa in 1884. Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi which was German East Africa in 1884. But not really the locations of the outbreaks. Kenya was a German protectorate in 1885, given to the British in 1897.

By all means it's possible that Bayer (a private pharmaceutical company) or Hoescht-Aventis (a private pharmaceutical company) might have had various strains of Ebola and Marburg in their personal possession. Especially Marburg 1975. But that doesn't mean that either one of those private pharmaceutical companies sold what they had to the German government (they may have kept it in their private corporate virus vault) and if they did sell it to the German government--Bayer has legal paperwork from hell. So the German government wouldn't be allowed to sell to anyone else let alone another country. Hoescht-Aventis was bought out by the French. So if they had any strain of Marburg or Ebola, then the Parisans would have it.

So that Wikileaks document makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds like a farce.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MapMistress
 


I can see your point! And thanks for your clear post. But in this cable are not any scientists talking. It's one embassy to another. Maybe that's why they don't use the proper terms



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Still makes no sense to me unless these are a couple of government do-do birds behind on the times.

First, you are mixing up private enterprise with governments in control. German government really has little control. Now Bayer, a corporation, they control governments. Do you understand the difference? Bayer would be a billion dollar corporation that spends millions towards campaigns of politicians in different countries past and present. In fact, Bayer AG (German) even put forth $1 million towards Bush's re-election. They own different politicians in Germany, different politicians in African countries, different politicians around the world.

Germany has never had control over Bayer. It has always been the other way around. So let's look at Marburg for example.

1967 Marburg wound up in the hands of the German government because of an outbreak on German soil. In that case, the German government would have that particular strain of Marburg to sell. And no doubts that the German pharmaceutical company Bayer would have obtained it.

But Bayer also owned politicians in South Africa, including Prime Minister Vorster who was a Nazi and idolized Adolf Hitler. A South African Nazi. Doesn't mean that the German government had anything to do with the South African Nazis because at the time the capitol of Germany, Berlin was divided into four and France, US, UK and Russia had control over the German capitol. East Germany still in the hands of Russia. So if Bayer obtained Marburg, they could do whatever they wanted with it--out of the hands of the German government which had no control over them.

And with Apartheid reservations, under a South African Nazi Prime Minister (Vorster) it is highly probable that Bayer could have cut a deal to test experimental meds for Marburg in South Africa. And it may have mutated as a result. But that doesn't mean that Bayer would have sold back the mutation to the German government, after all the German government would still be divided into four controlled by post-WWII treaties of the US, UK, France and Russia. So Bayer which has headquarters in other countries could do what they wanted with it.

And that transmission between embassies...makes it sound like the German government is doing it's own thing, when they aren't in control of their own pharmaceutical company and never have been.

Why would the US even try to buy anything from the German government when it's Bayer with all the biological viral goods? Makes no sense to me. Unless these are German government do-do birds who have no clue as to what their own pharmaceutical company headquartered in Germany has?



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MapMistress


Unless these are German government do-do birds who have no clue as to what their own pharmaceutical company headquartered in Germany has?


I don't see how this could not be the case?



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Hello ... creating vaccines / immunities to these diseases so if its launched in a mass scale , the military can be vaccinated so they can fight the nation that launched the Bio attack.

You have to stay update on the latest , greatest , and deadliest.



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
Hello ... creating vaccines / immunities to these diseases so if its launched in a mass scale , the military can be vaccinated so they can fight the nation that launched the Bio attack.

You have to stay update on the latest , greatest , and deadliest.


Wow..

That's a pretty naive thinking



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas

Originally posted by MapMistress


Unless these are German government do-do birds who have no clue as to what their own pharmaceutical company headquartered in Germany has?


I don't see how this could not be the case?


I suppose I'm referring to the private sector v. government.

Bayer AG is headquartered in Germany. They would have had samples of Marburg 1967 because of the outbreak on German soil. And they would have had such samples in a lab since the 1960s. The German government would have also had such samples since Marburg 1967 was named for Marburg, Germany. It originates in Africa, but because of an outbreak in Germany it got its name from a German town.

I find it difficult to imagine that the US doesn't already have different samples of Marburg since there's been plenty of Marburg outbreaks for them to send a team to get samples of the filovirus. So past government officials for the United States would already have such samples.

I would expect the U.S. government to have samples of:
Marburg 1967 (because they've had over 40 yrs to find a seller in Germany- they've probably already got it)
Marburg 1980 (Kenya)
Marburg 1987 (Kenya)
Marburg 1998-2000 (Congo)

I would expect Bayer AG (German PRIVATE company) to have samples of:
Marburg 1967 (Uganda, Germany, Serbia)
Marburg 1975 (Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa) from their South Africa office
Marburg 1998-2000 (Congo)
Marburg 2004-2005 (Angola) they could get it thru their South Africa office
Marburg 2008 (Netherlands) they probably could get ahold of it from the Netherlands; they are a billion dollar corporation and I'm sure someone in the Netherlands gov't would sell it

I would expect the German government to have ONLY a sample of:
Marburg 1967 (which had an outbreak on German soil)

The German government would really only have one to buy. A private corporation headquartered in Germany--they would be the one with all the samples, but not necessarily in their German offices. They have offices in other countries. So why would the US gov't be buying from the German government when it would be a private company headquartered in Germany that has all the samples?

The only ones that the US government might not have is Marburg 1975 (Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa). But since Bayer AG (Germany) has a major office in South Africa and during that year there was a German Prime Minister of South Africa--Bayer probably has a sample in lab of Marburg 1975. But that would be the private sector. The German government wouldn't have that sample even if a private pharmaceutical company within Germany might have a sample. There's a difference between private sector and government. I doubt that Bayer (a private pharm company) would sell their sample to the US government either. And I'm not even certain that they would sell their sample to the German government for that matter. Bayer definitely doesn't tell their own government about every virus that they have in vaults/labs in different offices/cities/countries for their pharm company around the world.

Now about the only thing that the US government might not have is Marburg 2008 which was imported into the Netherlands. A woman hiking in Kenya brought it back by accident to the Netherlands. She died in the Netherlands. But on that one, I don't know if the German government would have it. The U.S. would have to get it from the Netherlands--a completely different country.

So if there's a sale going on then it can't be between the German government and the United States. It would have to be between the Netherlands and the United States. And if there was really a sale of Marburg between the U.S. and German government, then it would have to be new people in office in the U.S. that don't know what other classified departments already have. So I nickname them "do-do birds." It would be a redundant purchase by a new administration. But I suppose one classified department in government doesn't always share with others what they already have.

Either that or what Wikileaks posted wasn't even true. I could see the U.S. gov't trying to buy Marburg 2008 from the Netherlands. But not Germany. And if that's so, then the Wikileaks post would be false.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MapMistress
 


As you say you would 'expect'. This doesn't mean that this is not how the whole deal has been handled.
Of course I myself have no proof of this, except that it is written in this cable. Which is real!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MapMistress
 





Now about the only thing that the US government might not have is Marburg 2008 which was imported into the Netherlands. A woman hiking in Kenya brought it back by accident to the Netherlands. She died in the Netherlands. But on that one, I don't know if the German government would have it. The U.S. would have to get it from the Netherlands--a completely different country.

So if there's a sale going on then it can't be between the German government and the United States. It would have to be between the Netherlands and the United States. And if there was really a sale of Marburg between the U.S. and German government, then it would have to be new people in office in the U.S. that don't know what other classified departments already have. So I nickname them "do-do birds." It would be a redundant purchase by a new administration. But I suppose one classified department in government doesn't always share with others what they already have.


You see, that's all speculation. No facts whatsoever. So I'm gonna stick with the cable.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Ok here's an odd update



Marburg haemorrhagic fever in Uganda



31 OCTOBER 2012 - As of 28 October 2012, a total of 18 cases and 9 deaths, including a health worker, have been reported from 5 districts namely Kabale district, in south-western Uganda, Kampala (the capital city), Ibanda, Mbarara and Kabarole. The case fatality rate is 50%. The outbreak was declared by the Ministry of Health in Uganda on 19 October 2012. Blood samples from 9 cases have been confirmed for Marburg virus at the Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI).



World Health Organisation





Uganda hit by Ebola outbreak



Scores of people have been medically isolated to prevent the spread of a new outbreak of Ebola in Uganda, the scene of increasingly regular outbreaks of deadly haemorrhagic fevers that have left health officials grappling for answers.
The cluster of Ebola cases was confirmed on Wednesday in a district 40 miles (60km) from the capital, Kampala, and comes roughly a month after Uganda declared itself free of the disease following an earlier outbreak in a remote district in the west of the country. Last month at least five people in south-west Uganda were killed by Marburg, a haemorrhagic fever similar to Ebola.



The Guardian


BOTH viruses were mentioned in the cable I posted





new topics
top topics
 
47
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join