It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Assassin82
I've had time when I've felt great in the morning and by the evening I've had raging vomiting and diarrhea that came out of nowhere that knocked my on my butt for a week after. Despite me also being young and sporty at the time.
But nobody is claiming that this is some biological weapons. It's just food poisoning.
What you experienced was simply a bad case of a sickness that effects different people in different ways. Nothing unusual about it.
originally posted by: LordAhriman
Good luck with this thread here. While I've seen healthy family and friends absolutely ravaged by it, most here either think it doesn't exist, or that it's less dangerous than the flu or common cold. You'll be called a liar, etc...
Over here in the real world, I'm sorry to hear it hit you so hard, and I'm glad you're here to tell us of your experience!
Here's my wife's cousin's story from a couple weeks ago. He was a denier like most of this site, then he died twice from it and lived to tell about it.
originally posted by: one4all
There is no such thing as a "virus" as you have been taught.
Yes, weaponization of biological entities is being done out there.....but the thing they are weaponizing is not a fictional virus.....its a viral sized bacteria.
My experience as a Farmer is that bug free grass fed animals are profitable animals....but bug infested grain fed animals are even more profitable.
Bug free healthy eating Humans are far LESS PROFITABLE to TPTB than bug infested grain fed ones are.
Think about it....or dont if it hurts to much to face the truth.
originally posted by: xuenchen
People keep forgetting about this Chinese Doctor...❗️
United States: Continues to plan, as it has for decades, for a massive retaliatory or preemptive “counterforce” attack in response to an actual or imminent nuclear attack, and for first use of nuclear weapons against an overwhelming conventional attack. The U.S. strategy of counterproliferation and the planning reflected in the Nuclear Posture Review reveal some new trends towards making nuclear arms more usable, identifying an enlarged range of circumstances in which nuclear weapons could be used, notably against non-nuclear attacks or threats. For instance, it states that nuclear weapons “could be employed against targets able to withstand non- nuclear attack, (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities)," and refers to nuclear use in response to “surprising military developments.” In December 2002, the presidentially approved National Security Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction announced that the United States will respond with “overwhelming force” – a phrase invoking the nuclear option – to chemical and biological attacks. It also referred to preemptive attacks against nuclear, chemical, and biological threats, and did not rule out nuclear use in such attacks. The United States opposes negotiation of a treaty codifying commitments not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. The commitments have been made in declarations by the United States and other nuclear weapon states in connection with the NPT.
In December 2002, the presidentially approved National Security Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction announced that the United States will respond with “overwhelming force” – a phrase invoking the nuclear option – to chemical and biological attacks. It also referred to preemptive attacks against nuclear, chemical, and biological threats, and did not rule out nuclear use in such attacks.