UPDATE 10. July 2021: KATE SUGAK INTERVIEWS DR. STEFAN LANKA: Disproving the concept of virology

UPDATE 09. July 2021: Proof that puts an end to the Sars-CoV-2 Narrative - Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D.

UPDATE 20. February 2021: ENTRY – The “virus mutation”?

UPDATE 19. February 2021: After all SARS-CoV-2 origin suspected in Wuhan lab by university study - Study on the origin of the coronavirus pandemic

UPDATE 02. February 2021: DEEPER INSIGHT: Imaging of SARS-CoV-2 infected Vero E6 cells by helium ion microscopy

UPDATE 15. February 2021: Coronavirus Mutations Update

UPDATE 14. February 2021: A Critical Review of CDC USA Data on Covid-19: PCR/Antigen Tests & Cases Reveal Herd Immunity Only, and Do Not Warrant Public Hysteria or Lockdowns

UPDATE 12. February 2021: Amazon Sars-Cov-2 Variant More Contagious, Minister Claims


UPDATE 02. February 2021: Monoclonal antibodies: 'great hope' in Covid treatments fails against variants - Exclusive: no leading contender is effective against all the South African, Brazilian and Kent variants

UPDATE 01. February 2021: The non-existent virus: it undercuts all other stories

UPDATE 24. January 2021: The 2,000 Euro Antidote-Pop for the Elite - Coronavirus: Germany to use new monoclonal antibody-based drug and bought it from Regeneron for  €400 million ($487 million) of taxpayer's money, though it might not work.

UPDATE 15. January 2021: ‘A bloody mess’: Confusion reigns over naming of new COVID variants

UPDATE 09. July 2020: COVID News and The Resistance

ICYMI: The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation

Exclusive: The Biological and/or Chemical, Debilitating and/or Incapacitating Contagious Agent (BCCA) in the Corona Saga

Even Bill Gates does not call the pathogen any more a 'virus'

By Venatrix Fulmen - 05. July 2020 (developing investigative report)

“Better treatment is reducing the deaths, but, particularly as you get into October and November, this thing will be back in big numbers, if we don’t restrain our behaviour more than it looks like we are right at the moment,” Gates warned during a CNN Global Town Hall on Thursday evening, as reported also by Business Insider.

Wild Theories - to distract from its lab-origin?

Coronavirus may have lain dormant across the world and emerged when environmental conditions were right for it to thrive – rather than starting in China, an Oxford University expert believes.

Dr Tom Jefferson, senior associate tutor at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at Oxford, and visiting professor at Newcastle University, says there is growing evidence the virus was elsewhere before it emerged in Asia.

Last week, Spanish virologists announced they had found traces of Covid-19 in samples of waste water collected in March 2019, nine months before the disease was seen in China.

Italian scientists have also found evidence of the virus in sewage samples in Milan and Turin, from mid-December 2019, many weeks before the first case was detected, while experts have found traces in Brazil from November 2020, but who kows what these tests actually respond to.

Earthquake near Wuhan, Hubei, China

A 5.0 magnitude earthquake occured on 26. December 2020 with its epicentre 9 km from Chengzhong, Hubei, China

UTC time: Thursday, December 26, 2019 10:36 AM - Magnitude Type: mb USGS page: M 5.0 - 5km S of Tiandian, China USGS status: Reviewed by a seismologist

Reports from the public: 26 people https://earthquaketrack.com/quakes/2019-12-26-10-36-37-utc-5-0-10 

Reports from the ground (not yet independently verified) state that the building of the BSL-4 Laboratory in Wuhan was affected and cracks in the structure were observed. Could pathogens escape?

Jefferson, however, believes that many viruses lie dormant throughout the globe and emerge when conditions are favourable. It also means they can vanish as quickly as they arrive.

But we know meanwhile that cerain COVID-19 tests for SARS-CoV-2 even show positive results when applied to papayas, goats and even motor-oil as proven in Tanzania.

In addition, the sudden outbreak in Iran, whose neighbouring countries were not affected prior, also could point to a deliberate action and release inside Iran.

While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) can receive claims for corona-virus elated monetary loss and compensation, the International Criminal Court (ICC) could accept cases of violations of International Criminal Law, e.g. related to the COVID-19 caused deaths. Although ICC has categorised only four main types of crimes it can handle, and causing the outbreak of a deadly pandemic is not one of them mentioned specifically, but under Article 7 of the Rome Statute - Crimes against Humanity - a culprit of the outbreak can face the trials. Whistleblowers are encouraged to approach the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the ICC to provide evidence.

The 'virus' is the poison - say the elders

Ancient Wisdom 
We are the answered prayers of our ancestors, we are the ones they have been waiting for!!
It was said there will come a TIME the western world will realize their values, beliefs & philosophies do not work when there is mass chaos, confusion, mayhem & destruction throughout the land. They will go sit at the sacred fire of the Red People and relearn life. Our children are on loan to us from Creator. Creator loved you enough to grant you free will, you are free to make choices but you are not free from the consequences. You must be able to live with the choices you make. Natural Law, the world knows as karma, exists for a reason does not know color, creed, religion & faith. You can lie to yourself, your fellow human being but you cannot lie to Creator. Be the change you to see.
Credit: Gerald Auger


Fact is that until today the so-called 'virus' dubbed SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated properly (i.e. following the internationally recognized standard) and its existence as 'virus' has not been verified. In addition - and following simple logic - the tests to establish the 'virus' have neither been validated nor have any of them been recognized by any authority. The World Health Organization (WHO), an agency of the United Nations (UN) organization is in itself not an entity that can serve as validation or recognition authority and the WHO only accepted the quickly assembled test and the results from these underdeveloped tests because nothing else was and is available to support the guesses.

While artists were busy to draw pictures of the "Corona-Virus" painted in the wildest colours, the dark-field electron microscope photographs showed only structures that also could resemble so-called exosomes, i.e. structures that regularly are observed wherever the human body fights against cell-death.

Many researchers found that the contagion dubbed SARS-CoV-2 exists already in several different traits and many smaller modifications, which scientists explained as being the reason for different levels of the transmission aggressiveness and illness-causing severity of the pathogen.

The work to establish the genetic sequence of the pathogens summed up as SARS-CoV-2, that is said to lead to the illness dubbed as disease by the WHO as COVID-19, needs to be peer-reviewed, but it has been found already that certain sections of the genetic sequences found in the Wuhan strains resemble sequences found in the HIV pathogen. In addition it has also been shown that the contagion dubbed SARS-CoV-2 has been weaponized to allow it to dock easily on the ACE-2 receptors of human cells and thereby make it dangerous for humans and contagious for human-to-human transmission. All these findings therefore indicate that the contagious agent was lab-manufactured and is at least a genetically engineered organism.

Fact is also that work has been done on these contagions, which once-upon-a-time were harvested as a 'virus' from bats, not only concerning its biological qualities and the genetic sequence but on a nano-scale also on its physio-chemical structures in form of nano-switches that at least in theory, but maybe also already in reality, can switch the activity of the contagious pathogen on and off. The key-researcher Prof. Lieber was arrested by the FBI at the airport before he could fly to China.

The question is, if the contagion does now possess besides possible addenda in form of nano-switches also other qualities that let it carry the means to produce bio-chemical vectors similar to the known incapacitating or lethal agents, which so far are only distinguished in two classes: biological and chemical - and covered as such by international conventions that prohibit them.

Apart from the long-overdue fulfilment of the clear demand postulated by all people of the free world to immediately stop any further development of such agents and to close down all the BSL-4 labs worldwide, it is therefore high time for all interested in containing the present outbreak and pandemic to focus on another dimension and on a possible bio-chemical contagious agent developed as a weapon, which has been set loose maybe at first unintended but now more and more intentional, which resembles a mixture of a classical virus with a bio-chemical agent and would be a complete new form of such a contagion. Such could maybe also explain many of the riddles that remain so far unanswered since last year concerning the developing and actual events.

When the truth and reconciliation commission of the first democratic government after the Apartheid regime of South-Africa inquired from "Dr. Death" - the biological and chemical weapons specialist Dr. Wouter Basson, who until today still managed to not get fully prosecuted and was never punished - to tell the truth about the regime's biological and chemical warfare activities, in which he was actively involved and key, the revelations opened to the commission of inquiry dimensions they had never thought to be possible in their wildest dreams.

That people and whole populations worldwide are still being played right now by the polit-economic circus is obvious and commissions of inquiry must be set up to deal with these injustices in each country, like they have begun in Germany, but it is now likewise paramount  to focus on SARS-CoV-2 per se, its origin and purpose with an Independent International Trial.

The truth must be found out and the villains stopped forever.




Venatrix Fulmen is an investigative journalist and can be reached via




‘Proof that puts an end to the Sars-CoV-2 Narrative’

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D.

By Mordechai Sones - 09. July 2021

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D. explains, based on new evidence, why he believes:

– Your immune system is your best defence against SARS-CoV-2, and indeed all coronaviruses.

– If you have been infected, even if you experienced no symptoms at all, you are immune to all variants.

– We have already reached herd immunity.

– There is no scientific reason to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2. There is simply no benefit and the rollout must be stopped.

And much more.

⁣Scientific literature references for Dr. Bhakdi’s presentation:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science… (v important DK)

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/art… v. imp. IgG IgA response to mRNA vacc. +++

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-… (key spike and IgG after vacc)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.0… (third IgG response to vaccine paper)

Support Oracle Films


Mordechai Sones

Mordechai Sones



Re-published on BITCHUTE July 10th, 2021.

Interview by Kate(Ekaterina) Sugak who brings all the right questions into place. Watch through the end, even vaccines, shedding and modern genetic methods are being discussed. Great interview.


ENTRY – The “virus mutation”?

Since early February, a whole series of alarming statements about SARS-CoV-2 and its alleged mutations have been circulating in the media.

Two of the most prominent examples are these:

The mutation from the UK and others will overrun us, the virus has been given a rocket boost.

This race has long been lost.

Probably just about everyone in Germany knows these quotes, which come from another so-called “corona expert” – one of the “voices of science.” How many experts are there? Nevertheless, the assertions of this “expert,” a virologist by profession, have not only been extensively disseminated via many media channels, but have also often been (justifiably) criticised.

We don’t want to discuss the media and media representatives here, but what scientists are expecting when they spread such wild horror forecasts is really a mystery to us. Whatever their intentions may be, such scaremongering is certainly not helpful! Especially when it has no factual basis whatsoever.

We are not implying that the virologist quoted above has bad intentions! We assume that they firmly believe in what they say and are convinced that they are doing the right thing. Therefore, we also disassociate ourselves from all the insults and accusations showered on them and other scientists who support the government’s measures or call for even harsher measures. However, we strongly criticise this virologist and many other scientists for their dubious and irresponsible behaviour in making such statements! Spreading fear and panic is never sensible! Even people who are only distantly involved in the field of medicine should know this better than anyone else.

What kind of mutations of SARS-CoV-2 are alleged to exist?

Allegations that the notorious SARS-CoV-2 has been mutating further have been circulating in the media since December 2020.
The most well-known alleged variants that are said to have emerged from SARS-CoV-2 and with which fear is once again being unrestrainedly stoked in the population are:

“CLUSTER 5” from Denmark
B.1.351, 501Y.V2 from South Africa
B.1.1.28 P.1, 501Y.V.3 from Brazil
and, of course, B.1.1.7, 501Y.V1 from the United Kingdom, which served as justification for even harsher, more devastating measures and probably helped create the senseless “#ZeroCovid” campaign.

These mutations, according to the “experts,” will supposedly lead to an easier transmissibility of COVID-19. Due to the mutation of the so-called spike proteins, the alleged new coronaviruses are said to be able to dock onto cells more easily and infiltrate them. The best known examples of these alleged spike protein mutations are D614G and N501Y.

How did the idea of viral mutation come about?

In contrast to what is generally expected in science, the existence of viruses is not factually proven in virology. Instead, their existence is considered to be proven solely on the basis of interpreted appearances and conceptual models. Pathogenic viruses are thus nothing more than mere consensus, i.e. an opinion that has been agreed upon in science.
You can learn more about virus evidence in the main program of ImmanuelProject.
The “SARS-CoV-2” virus, in turn, is itself believed to be a mutation of ancient coronavirus strains. This assumption arose from the so-called “sequence alignment” which is considered one of the strongest scientific proofs for the existence of SARS-CoV-2. Sequence alignment is a bioinformatics technique in which fragments of nucleic acid (DNA) are assembled with a computer into a hypothetical strand of genetic material. In order to carry out the alignment, roughly comparable to a jigsaw puzzle, templates in the form of old strands of genetic material are required. In the same way as the picture on the box of a puzzle serves as a template. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, two old corona models were used for this purpose.
Because during the alignment process, large parts of the constructed genome strand are freely invented, and other parts are “tweaked” by the associated computer programs to produce a reasonably credible result, the finished product never looks 100% like the template. It’s similar to forcibly putting together puzzle pieces that don’t even belong to the original to create a similar image.

=> this (inevitable) deviation to the template is in the end the basis of the entire “mutation” named SARS-CoV-2!

How does one come to the idea that SARS-CoV-2 is supposed to have mutated further?

The genome of SARS-CoV-2 is fictitious, but some of the basis for it is from strands of nucleic acid which are found in the metabolism of any organism (which is part of the reason why any human, animal or plant can potentially test”positive” for Corona). To use the example of the jigsaw puzzle again: you have a few real puzzle pieces, but they have nothing to do with the template, and you simply make up all the remaining parts by cutting out suitable pieces of cardboard and painting them according to the template.
It has been known for more than twenty years that nucleic acid is constantly changing. Therefore, nucleic acid cannot possibly contain our inheritance! Ideas such as epigenetics (the theory of flexible heredity) are only desperate attempts to somehow justify and keep alive the old model of a material heredity in the form of genes.
Nowadays, some scientists are considering that DNA rather serves to generate and release energy in the body, which could explain the constant changes in DNA. However, the majority of scientists still assume the outdated idea of genes (without ever questioning and testing them) and believe that the blueprint of a living being is stored in DNA. Therefore, they interpret the fact that changes to DNA take place as an indication of “mutation” of genes.
Therefore, when examining DNA fragments obtained from humans or animals, mistakenly assumed to be the basis of the hypothetical genetic strand of SARS-CoV-2, finding that the DNA has changed, the conclusion is drawn that SARS-CoV-2 has mutated.

➡️ the idea of mutations of SARS-CoV-2 is based only on an interpretation of the fact that all DNA is constantly changing. Or more generally formulated, the idea of the virus mutation arises only because one still works with completely outdated, long since disproved scientific hypotheses.
With this obsolete approach, new mutations of SARS-CoV-2 can be found/invented for all eternity. This can quickly become a catastrophic self-perpetuating vicious circle, and it appears that many scientists have already fallen into this.

You can find more on the topic of “viral mutation” in our video O.R.I., No. 02: “Virus mutation – the misinterpretation of a misinterpretation.” In the main programme of Project Immanuel, this topic and all related matters will be dealt with in detail and substantiated with all necessary references.


After all SARS-CoV-2 origin suspected in Wuhan lab

"Corona came from a laboratory in #Wuhan," says Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Prof. h.c. Roland Wiesendanger, renowned physicist and Nanoscientist at the University of Hamburg. He and his team compiled 600 facts in a new study.

Origin of coronavirus a lab accident in China after all?

By Christian Euler - 19. FEBRUARY 2021

A researcher at the University of Hamburg, which is not previously known for any unseriousness, locates the origin of the corona virus in China.

In a study, nanoscientist Prof. Dr. Roland Wiesendanger concludes that both the number and quality of circumstantial evidence point to a laboratory accident at the Wuhan City Virological Institute as the cause of the current pandemic.

The study looks at a period from January 2020 to December 2020. "It does not provide highly scientific evidence, but it does provide numerous and serious circumstantial clues," the University of Hamburg acknowledges. Among the most important clues:

- Unlike previous coronavirus-related epidemics such as SARS and MERS, no intermediate host animal could be identified even until more than a year after the outbreak. Therefore, the zoonotic theory as a possible explanation for the pandemic has no sound scientific basis.

- The SARS-CoV-2 viruses are surprisingly good at coupling to human cell receptors and penetrating human cells. Both of these properties together were previously unknown in coronaviruses and indicate a non-natural origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen.

- Numerous technical publications show that a research group at the Wuhan City Virological Institute has been genetically manipulating coronaviruses for many years - with the aim of making them more infectious, dangerous and deadly to humans.

- Bats were not offered at the suspected fish market in the center of Wuhan city. Nevertheless, the virological institute there has one of the world's largest collections of bat pathogens, which originate from caves 2000 km away in southern Chinese provinces. It is extremely unlikely that bats would have traveled this distance naturally on their way to Wuhan, only to cause a global pandemic in the immediate vicinity of this virological institute.


"Only on the basis of this knowledge can adequate precautions be taken to minimize the probability of similar pandemics occurring in the future," study author Wiesendanger cautions. With the publication, he wants to stimulate a broad discussion.

A breakthrough is unlikely to be possible on the basis of this work: the researcher primarily used existing sources for his work, but did not conduct any scientific investigations on site himself. According to his own statements, the findings are based on "interdisciplinary as well as subject-specific scientific literature with and without scientific peer review, letters, correspondence and commentaries published in the scientific literature, media reports and personal communication with international colleagues."

While it may not be a coincidence that the world's largest virus bank is located just a few kilometers from the outbreak site in Wuhan. Or that there was a paper from this lab back in 2015 on how to grow corona viruses in bats. But it is important to keep in mind that the virus is still not available in an isolated, purified form, nor can it be correctly detected scientifically.

This fits in: While it is still not clear to the World Health Organization (WHO) where the virus originated, China continues to claim that it could have been spread through frozen food.


Dipl.-Volkswirt Christian Euler has devoted himself intensively to financial and economic journalism since 1998. After working for Börse Online in Munich and as a correspondent for "Focus" in Frankfurt, he has been writing as an investment writer and freelance author for the "Welt" Group, Cash and the Wiener Börsen-Kurier, among others, since 2006.
Image: modigia/Shutterstock
Text: ce Translation from German: vf - read the German version HERE

Prof. Dr. Roland Wiesendanger works at the Department of Physics, University of Hamburg . He does research in Condensed Matter Physics, in particular Nanoscience, Surface and Interface Physics, Magnetism and Low Temperature Physics.


Study on the origin of the coronavirus pandemic

Studie zum Ursprung der Coronavirus-Pandemie

  • February 2021

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31754.80323


Roland Wiesendanger at University of Hamburg

Roland Wiesendanger


Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Download file PDF

Read file


Die vorliegende Studie zum Ursprung der Coronavirus-Pandemie wurde im Zeitraum vom 01.01.2020 bis 31.12.2020 an der Universität Hamburg durchgeführt. Erste Zwischenergebnisse dieser Studie wurden am 5. Mai 2020 im Rahmen einer Pressemitteilung bekannt gegeben. Seitdem sind durch internationalen Informationsaustausch weitere wesentliche Erkenntnisse und Dokumente zusammengetragen worden. Das vorliegende Dokument wurde am 6. Januar 2021 fertig gestellt. Es wurde zunächst ausschließlich in Wissenschaftskreisen verteilt und diskutiert. Am 12. Februar 2021 erfolgte die Freigabe für die Veröffentlichung als Basis einer breit angelegten Diskussion in der Bevölkerung, die angesichts der Bedeutung der Thematik faktenbasiert informiert werden soll und in zukünftige Entscheidungsprozesse einzubeziehen ist.

References (57)


SARS-CoV-2 is Bio-Weapon - say Researchers

Bioweapon SARS-CoV-2 contains unique “gain-of-function” property

The Hunt for Coronavirus Origins


Coronavirus Mutations Update

SARS-CoV-2 N501 mutation lineages (nextstrain.org)

By SPR - 15. February 2021

A brief update on the new coronavirus mutations, including the ‘British’, ‘South African’ and ‘Brazilian’ variants (i.e. N501Y.V1-V3), and evidence of their properties:

  1. There is currently no evidence that new variants are more virulent or more lethal or that they produce any different symptoms. The fact that covid is generally more severe in winter than in spring and summer was to be expected (e.g. due to lower vitamin D levels).
  2. There is clear evidence that the new variants are currently about 50% more transmissible, although suspected higher viral loads have not been confirmed. However, this relative advantage in transmissibility may decrease over time, as more people get infected.
  3. There is currently no evidence that new variants preferentially infect children.
  4. There is also no evidence that measures such as lockdowns or face masks work any better or any worse against new variants. Many places affected by new variants have already seen a decrease in cases (e.g. Denmark, Portugal, the Netherlands, South Africa and the UK).
  5. Even places with a near 100% proportion of new variants, such as parts of England, managed to drive down infection rates, which speaks against an out-of-control “new pandemic”.
  6. The fact that ACE2 cell receptor affinity is higher in new variants does not mean that their virulence or infectiousness must be higher; they may as well be lower or unchanged.
  7. The fact that a new variant may replace an older variant is well known from previous Sars-Cov-2 variants (e.g. D614G and the ‘Spanish variant’) and also from seasonal influenza viruses. This effect does not necessarily require higher intrinsic contagiousness.
  8. The fact that places with a small first wave are seeing a stronger second wave (e.g. Portugal) was to be expected and does not require new variants – e.g. many Eastern European countries and some US states saw stronger second waves of the original variant.
  9. There is, however, some evidence of partial immune evasion by new variants, which is well known from influenza viruses and from other coronaviruses, and which may enable reinfections – with or without symptoms – in some people, and first infections in more people.
  10. Immune evasion may explain why some places already hit hard in spring, such as South Africa or Manaus in Brazil – both of which had an antibody seroprevalence of about 30% until summer (but not 70%, as some claimed) – are seeing a strong second wave driven by new variants.
  11. There is also clear evidence that some of the current vaccines are somewhat less protective against some of the new variants. These vaccines may require regular updates or boosters.
  12. But there is no evidence that early and prophylactic treatment is any less effective against new variants, as it targets virus replication, cell entry, or disease progression.

See alsoCoronavirus Variants Dashboard (covariants.org)

See also


Imaging of SARS-CoV-2 infected Vero E6 cells by helium ion microscopy

  1. Natalie Frese1,
  2. Patrick Schmerer2,
  3. Martin Wortmann3ORCID Logo,
  4. Matthias Schürmann4,
  5. Matthias König2ORCID Logo,
  6. Michael Westphal1,
  7. Friedemann Weber2ORCID Logo,
  8. Holger Sudhoff4ORCID Logo and
  9. Armin Gölzhäuser1ORCID Logo

1Physics of Supramolecular Systems and Surfaces, Faculty of Physics, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany 
2Institute of Virology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany 
3Faculty of Engineering and Mathematics, Bielefeld University of Applied Sciences, Bielefeld, Germany 

  1.  Corresponding author email

This article is part of the thematic issue "Ten years of the helium ion microscope".

Guest Editors: G. Hlawacek and A. Wolff 
Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2021, 12, 172–179. https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.12.13 
Received 02 Dec 2020, Accepted 28 Jan 2021, Published 02 Feb 2021

A non-peer-reviewed version of this article has been posted as a preprint https://doi.org/10.3762/bxiv.2020.136.v1

  • Full Research Paper
  • PDF


Helium ion microscopy (HIM) offers the opportunity to obtain direct views of biological samples such as cellular structures, virus particles, and microbial interactions. Imaging with the HIM combines sub-nanometer resolution, large depth of field, and high surface sensitivity. Due to its charge compensation capability, the HIM can image insulating biological samples without additional conductive coatings. Here, we present an exploratory HIM study of SARS-CoV-2 infected Vero E6 cells, in which several areas of interaction between cells and virus particles, as well as among virus particles, were imaged. The HIM pictures show the three-dimensional appearance of SARS-CoV-2 and the surface of Vero E6 cells at a multiplicity of infection of approximately 1 with great morphological detail. The absence of a conductive coating allows for a distinction between virus particles bound to the cell membrane and virus particles lying on top of the membrane. After prolonged imaging, it was found that ion-induced deposition of hydrocarbons from the vacuum renders the sample sufficiently conductive to allow for imaging even without charge compensation. The presented images demonstrate the potential of the HIM in bioimaging, especially for the imaging of interactions between viruses and their host organisms.

Keywords: bioimaging; cell membrane; charge compensation; helium ion microscopy; SARS-CoV-2; Vero E6 cells


The last decade of helium ion microscopy (HIM) was characterized by a rapid exploration of its sub-nanometer imaging and ion-beam nanofabrication capabilities in materials science and engineering [1]. Although HIM soon proved to be a promising tool in the life sciences, the examination of biological samples by HIM proceeded at a much slower pace. In recent years, it has been used in the field of cell biology for imaging various human and animal cells. These include cartilage [2], cancer [3], liver [4], kidney [5] and stem cells [6], as well as fibrin fibers [7]. To visualize viruses and their host organisms, HIM has so far been applied to image T4 phage-infected E. coli bacteria [8], various phases of the life cycle of the bacterial predator Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus [9] and the vesicular structure of ethane-oxidizing archaea [10]. A comprehensive review on the subject of bioimaging with HIM has recently been published by Schmidt and co-workers [11].

In this work, we use HIM to investigate Vero E6 cells infected with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Several members of the family Coronaviridae have been described in the human population and usually cause mild respiratory disease. SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated a world-wide spread causing a significant global public health emergency [12,13]. As of January 18th, 2021, more than 95 million cases worldwide have been confirmed with the infection and over two million infected patients have died [14]. African green monkey kidney Vero E6 cells have been reported to support SARS-CoV-2 replication in culture, while many more cell lines have been reported to be refractory to SARS-CoV-2 infection [15]. Both scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) have been used to image SARS-CoV-2 [16-20]. While TEM achieves unsurpassed resolution and can visualize macromolecular structures such as spike glycoproteins or transmembrane proteins [21], SEM provides topographic images of infected cells and virus particles distributed on their surface, albeit only after the samples have been coated with a conductive layer. In contrast, the HIM delivers a topographic image of the uncoated surface morphology of cells and virus particles, allowing one to identify and investigate sites at which a cell interacts with the virus. While its principle of operation is very similar to SEM, HIM utilizes a beam of positively charged helium ions (He+) instead of negatively charged electrons to excite and detect secondary electrons from the sample surface. Due to the high brightness and low energy spread of its atomically sharp gas field ion source, the smallest attainable focused spot size is about 0.3 nm [22]. With its significantly smaller convergence angle compared to SEM, HIM achieves a much larger depth of field, which is particularly useful for imaging three-dimensional structures [22]. Due to their higher mass, He+ ions penetrate deeper into the sample and do not spread as wide as electrons, resulting in a smaller escape volume of the secondary electrons and a higher surface resolution of the HIM, compared to the SEM [23]. A further benefit of HIM is its charge compensation capability during secondary electron detection. SEM imaging of biological specimen usually necessitates a thin conductive coating to prevent negative charge accumulation from the impinging electrons. Such coatings, albeit only a few nanometers thick, can significantly alter and conceal fine details of biological nanostructures [2], which is noticeable in SEM images of virus particles [19,24]. Since in the HIM positive charge accumulates on insulating samples, a low-energy electron flood gun can be used for charge compensation, which irradiates the sample with a diffuse beam of electrons. This eliminates the need for a conductive coating, and allows for a direct view on nanoscale structures [6,25]. Here, we demonstrate the benefits of high-resolution HIM by imaging SARS-CoV-2 interacting with Vero E6 cells without any conductive coating. The presented images allow for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 virus particles, their interaction with the cell membrane and a distinction between virus particles bound to the cell surface from those lying on it.


Vero E6 cells were cultivated in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (Thermo Fisher Scientific) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Capricorn Scientific) in a 5% CO2 atmosphere at 37 °C. SARS-CoV-2 (strain SARS-CoV-2 /München-1.2/2020/984, p.2) [26] was grown on Vero E6 cells and titrated as described [27]. Infection experiments were done under biosafety level 3 conditions with enhanced respiratory personal protection equipment.

For HIM, cells were seeded onto coverslips placed in 24-well plates. The coverslips were previously sputter coated with 30 nm of gold to improve charge neutralization during HIM imaging. After 24 h, nearly confluent monolayers were infected with SARS-CoV-2 at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of approximately 1 or mock-infected using cell culture medium. Following an incubation period of 18 h in a cell culture incubator (37 °C), cells were washed with 0.1 M sodium cacodylate (NaCac, pH 7.4) and fixed in 2% (v/v) glutaraldehyde, 2% (w/v) paraformaldehyde in NaCac buffer at room temperature for 30 min. After fixation at room temperature, the samples were transferred to the normal laboratory area and then fixed at 4 °C with fresh fixatives. The coverslips were subsequently washed and dehydrated in a graded series of ethanol (50%, 70%, 95%, 99.5% (2×)), transferred to water-free acetone and critical point dried in carbon dioxide.

HIM was performed with an Orion Plus microscope (Carl Zeiss) at an acceleration voltage of about 36 kV and a working distance of 20 mm. The spot control was set to 6 to obtain a beam current of 0.2 to 0.4 pA. To avoid charging effects during secondary electron detection, an electron flood gun was used after each line scan, if not stated otherwise, with a flood energy of 540 eV, flood time of 10 µs and a focus of 107 V. It should be mentioned that the flood gun parameters have to be optimized for each magnification level. All HIM images were recorded with 1024 × 1024 pixels. Before imaging, each sample was stored in the vacuum chamber of the microscope at 3.3 × 10−7 mbar for at least 24 h to remove most volatile organic contaminants.

Results and Discussion

A comparison between a native and an infected Vero E6 cell at multiple magnification levels is shown in Figure 1Figure 1a shows a sequence of four HIM images of native Vero E6 cells (mock-infected). Figure 1bdisplays a sequence of HIM images of Vero E6 cells after they have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 at a multiplicity of infection of approximately 1 (MOI 1) and an incubation time of 18 h. The surface of the infected cells is covered by a number of micrometer-sized vesicles and segments of cell membranes, which is a first indication that apoptosis occurred during viral replication. Regularly shaped particles below 100 nm diameter on the cell membrane shown in Figure 1b4 were only abundant on the cells of the MOI 1 sample and were therefore identified as SARS-CoV-2 virus particles. This is in accordance with a study of Bojkova et al. [28], which demonstrated the presence of newly synthesized viral particles of SARS-CoV-2 even 10 h after initial infection. The cell membrane of the infected cell is covered with the virus particles, which are predominantly spherically shaped. Holes in the cell membrane, illustrated in Figure 1b4 and Figure S1 of Supporting Information File 1, have previously been observed in uncoated mammalian cells and indicate lipid nanodomains or caveolea [6]Figure 1c shows an evaluation of the virus particle size in five arbitrarily chosen regions on the MOI 1 sample resulting in an average diameter of the virus particles of 75 ± 13 nm, noting that this value has been obtained from viruses after fixation and critical point drying.


Figure 1: Comparative HIM images of Vero E6 cells that were mock-infected and infected at MOI 1. (a1–4) Mock-infected cells at different magnifications (FOV 200 µm, 45 µm, 15 µm, and 1.7 µm) and (b1–4) cells infected at MOI 1 at different magnifications (FOV 250 µm, 45 µm, 15 µm, and 1.7 µm). The cell membrane is covered with the virus particles. (c1–5) Determined virus particle diameter distributions. The inserted histograms show the respective image evaluation with normal distribution, mean value, and standard deviation. The average diameter of all evaluated images is 75 ± 13 nm.

As He+ ions can penetrate several hundred nanometers into the sample [29], the outer rim of the cells appears brighter because the ions pass through the cells and generate additional secondary electrons at the back of the cells and in the gold-coated specimen slide [30]. The edges appear brightest where the cells bend upwards from the substrate. The edge resolution in two highly magnified images, shown in Figure S2 of Supporting Information File 1, has been determined by plotting the corresponding gray-scale values over the edges of two holes, resulting in values of 1.3 and 2.1 nm. The edge resolution of the images is determined by an interplay between the size of the focused He+ beam and the widening of the beam within the sample material. The obtained values are typical for biological materials [6-8,11].

An effect frequently occurring during HIM imaging with charge compensation can be observed in the sequence of HIM images shown in Figure 2a1–3, where a location on a MOI 1-infected Vero E6 sample was first imaged at a field of view (FOV) of 23 µm (Figure 2a1), followed by two higher magnification images with a FOV of 4.5 µm and a FOV of 1 µm (Figure 2a2). Figure 2a3 shows the same region as Figure 2a1, but the parts that were previously imaged at high magnification (FOV of 4.5 μm) with a dose of 1.4 × 1016 ions/cm2 appear noticeably brighter. This is caused by He+ beam-induced carbonaceous deposits resulting in a thin conductive coating. In addition to the improved conductivity of the specimen, the deposited layer may contribute to the electron density of the surface, thus increasing secondary electron yield. This effect, commonly referred to as electron- and/or ion beam-induced deposition, is commonly observed in charged-particle microscopes. In electron microscopes, deposition rates of up to 3 Å/s at high current densities have been reported. As the deposition rate quickly reaches an equilibrium with rising current density, it can be assumed that the limiting factor is the density of residual hydrocarbons in the vacuum [31]. In the HIM, residual gas as well as the specimen itself are considered the main contributors of hydrocarbons [32,33]. Due to the much larger mass of He+ ions compared to electrons, their sputter rate is typically much higher. Since organic compounds are ablated from the sample surface, hydrocarbon deposition is likely to be more pronounced when imaging biological samples in HIM. A schematic illustration of this effect can be seen in Figure S3 of Supporting Information File 1.


Figure 2: Effect of carbon deposition during HIM imaging. (a1) HIM image (FOV 20 µm) of a cell infected at MOI 1 with charge compensation. (a2) HIM images at high magnification (FOV 4.5 µm and 1 µm) with charge compensation. (a3) The same image section as (a1) after imaging the regions in (a2). Due to increased conductivity, this region appears significantly brighter than the rest of the image. (b1–3) HIM images of a cell infected at MOI 1 at different magnifications (FOV 20 µm, 5 µm, and 450 nm) with charge compensation. (c1–3) HIM images of the same cell (FOV 20 µm, 2 µm, and 450 nm) after imaging the magnified sections in (b). (c1) and (c2) were imaged with and (c3) was imaged without charge compensation.

Figure 2b1–3 shows an infected Vero E6 cell at different magnification levels. Figure 2b3 depicts the highest magnification (FOV 450 nm) of the cell seen in Figure 2b1, showing the virus particles on top of the cell membrane in a side view. Note that after the zoom-out in Figure 2c1, the previously imaged regions appear again brighter. After imaging Figure 2c2 with a dose of 1.9 × 1017 ions/cm2, the flood gun was turned off, which allowed imaging of Figure 2c3 without any external charge compensation. From the quality of this image, it can be inferred that the deposited carbon layer rendered the sample sufficiently conductive. However, small structures are still visible on the membrane surface, which may originate from surface topography or material contrast. The deposited carbon film is presumably thinner than typical conductive metal or carbon coatings for SEM imaging, and it does not show any surface masking and clustering as seen on the gold substrate in the upper left of Figure 2b2. The energy of the incident hydrocarbons is much lower compared to the energy of sputter-deposited metals. However, it is possible that this unintended, but sometimes useful, carbon deposition can be reduced by HIM imaging in ultra-high vacuum [34-36].

The cell structures shown in the HIM images of Figure 3a are sharply resolved over tens of micrometers, which demonstrates the high depth of field of HIM compared to SEM [37]. In image 3a3, at the surface of the cell, a cluster of virus particles seems to be bound to the cell membrane (arrow). We suggest that this resembles the particle clustering by host defense protein BST-2 as it was observed for human coronavirus229E and quantified in HeLa cells by Wang and co-workers [38]. However, the metal coating applied by Wang et al. is clearly visible at high resolution in the SEM images as a rough layer on the cell membrane that hides the true topography [25,39]. In contrast, the HIM images presented here not only allow for the quantification of particles and clusters, but also enable an unveiled view on the interaction of virus particles with the cell membrane. The presented particle cluster seems to have a coalesced appearance, which might be caused by the virus–virus and virus–membrane interactions mediated through agglutinating BST-2 [40,41]. Some viral particles appear to be connected to the cell membrane by a continuous junction (arrowheads). Figure 3b shows another cell on the MOI 1 sample at different magnification levels. At the highest magnification shown in Figure 3b3 (FOV 850 nm), these junctions can also be observed (arrowheads). We assume that this resembles the tubulating cell membrane, which is stabilized by BST-2 to prevent viral scission. This alternative BST-2 interaction was already described for HIV-infected cells via immuno-TEM [42] but has not yet been observed for SARS-CoV-2. Aside from this observation, the HIM images allow for the distinction between viruses bound to the membrane and virus particles lying on top of the membrane (Figure 3b, arrows). Compared to a SEM study in which all visible virus particles on a cell membrane were quantified [38], HIM images could provide additional information about bound and unbound particles, resulting in more accurate data by counting only the bound particles. The presented images demonstrate that the HIM is well suited for the imaging of virus–membrane and virus–virus interactions, for example, when the virus particles are bound to the cell membrane or/and have a coalesced appearance.


Figure 3: HIM images of cells infected at MOI 1 imaged with charge compensation. (a1–3) Different magnifications of an infected cell (FOV 17 µm, 3.5 µm, and 1.3 µm). At the high magnification in (a3), clusters of virus particles (arrow) and junctions (arrowheads) between the virus particle and the cell membrane become visible. (b1–3) Different magnifications of an infected cell (FOV 18 µm, 2 µm, and 850 nm). While some of the virus particles appear to be bound to the cell membrane (arrowheads), others seem to just lie on top of it (arrow).

It is known that the spike glycoproteins can be visualized by TEM. As the HIM images depicted the virus particles without conductive coating, it is an interesting question, whether or not the spike glycoproteins could, in principle, be resolved in HIM images. Inspecting the highest magnification images, Figure 2b3 and Figure 2c3, we do not see unequivocal evidence of structures indicating the spike glycoproteins. However, it is conceivable that a dedicated sample preparation could preserve their structure for imaging in HIM.


In this study, HIM images of Vero E6 cells without infection and infected with SARS-CoV-2 are presented. On infected cells, the ultrastructure of the cell–virus interaction, as well as interaction among virus particles, is shown. The absence of a previously applied conductive coating allows for the distinction between virus particles bound to the cell membrane and virus particles lying on top of the cell membrane. The images unveil the three-dimensional appearance of SARS-COV-2 and the surface of Vero E6 cells at MOI 1 with an edge resolution of up to 1.3 nm. Additionally, it is shown that ion-induced deposition renders the sample surface sufficiently conductive to be imaged without charge compensation. The presented images demonstrate the potential of the HIM in bioimaging, especially for the imaging of interactions between viruses and their host organisms. HIM thus represents a versatile complement to conventional methods in the life sciences.

Supporting Information

Supporting Information File 1: Additional experimental data.
Format: PDF Size: 757.1 KB  Download


The authors thank André Beyer and Daniel Emmrich for valuable discussions.


F.W. is funded by the LOEWE Centre for Novel Drug Targets against Poverty-Related and Neglected Tropical Infectious Diseases (DRUID), which is part of the excellence initiative of the Hessen State Ministry of Higher Education, Research and the Arts (HMWK), the RAPID consortium of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, grant number 01KI1723E), and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 101003666 (OPENCORONA). This work was further conducted within the framework of the COST Action CA19140 (FIT4NANO).


  1. Hlawacek, G.; Gölzhäuser, A., Eds. Helium Ion Microscopy; NanoScience and Technology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41990-9 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  2. Vanden Berg-Foels, W. S.; Scipioni, L.; Huynh, C.; Wen, X. J. Microsc. (Oxford, U. K.) 2012, 246, 168–176. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2818.2012.03606.x 
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  3. BAZOU, D.; BEHAN, G.; REID, C.; BOLAND, J. J.; ZHANG, H. Z. J. Microsc. (Oxford, U. K.) 2011, 242,290–294. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2818.2010.03467.x 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  4. Chen, X.; Udalagama, C. N. B.; Chen, C.-B.; Bettiol, A. A.; Pickard, D. S.; Venkatesan, T.; Watt, F. Biophys. J. 2011, 101, 1788–1793. doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2011.08.028 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  5. Rice, W. L.; Van Hoek, A. N.; Păunescu, T. G.; Huynh, C.; Goetze, B.; Singh, B.; Scipioni, L.; Stern, L. A.; Brown, D. PLoS One 2013, 8, e57051. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057051 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  6. Schürmann, M.; Frese, N.; Beyer, A.; Heimann, P.; Widera, D.; Mönkemöller, V.; Huser, T.; Kaltschmidt, B.; Kaltschmidt, C.; Gölzhäuser, A. Small 2015, 11, 5781–5789. doi:10.1002/smll.201501540 
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2] [3] [4]
  7. Greiner, J. F. W.; Hauser, S.; Widera, D.; Müller, J.; Qunneis, F.; Zander, C.; Martin, I.; Mallah, J.; Schuetzmann, D.; Prante, C.; Schwarze, H.; Prohaska, W.; Beyer, A.; Rott, K.; Hütten, A.; Gölzhäuser, A.; Sudhoff, H.; Kaltschmidt, C.; Kaltschmidt, B. Eur. Cells Mater. 2011, 22, 403–419. doi:10.22203/ecm.v022a30 
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  8. Leppänen, M.; Sundberg, L.-R.; Laanto, E.; de Freitas Almeida, G. M.; Papponen, P.; Maasilta, I. J. Adv. Biosyst. 2017, 1, 1700070. doi:10.1002/adbi.201700070 
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  9. Said, N.; Chatzinotas, A.; Schmidt, M. Adv. Biosyst. 2019, 3, 1800250. doi:10.1002/adbi.201800250 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  10. Chen, S.-C.; Musat, N.; Lechtenfeld, O. J.; Paschke, H.; Schmidt, M.; Said, N.; Popp, D.; Calabrese, F.; Stryhanyuk, H.; Jaekel, U.; Zhu, Y.-G.; Joye, S. B.; Richnow, H.-H.; Widdel, F.; Musat, F. Nature 2019,568, 108–111. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1063-0 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  11. Schmidt, M.; Byrne, J. M.; Maasilta, I. J. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2021, 12, 1–23. doi:10.3762/bjnano.12.1 
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  12. Corman, V. M.; Lienau, J.; Witzenrath, M. Internist 2019, 60, 1136–1145. doi:10.1007/s00108-019-00671-5
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  13. Wu, F.; Zhao, S.; Yu, B.; Chen, Y.-M.; Wang, W.; Song, Z.-G.; Hu, Y.; Tao, Z.-W.; Tian, J.-H.; Pei, Y.-Y.; Yuan, M.-L.; Zhang, Y.-L.; Dai, F.-H.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Q.-M.; Zheng, J.-J.; Xu, L.; Holmes, E. C.; Zhang, Y.-Z. Nature 2020, 579, 265–269. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  14. Coronavirus COVID-19 Dashboard, Johns Hopkins University. https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 (accessed Jan 18, 2021). 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  15. Takayama, K. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2020, 41, 513–517. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2020.05.005 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  16. Zhu, N.; Zhang, D.; Wang, W.; Li, X.; Yang, B.; Song, J.; Zhao, X.; Huang, B.; Shi, W.; Lu, R.; Niu, P.; Zhan, F.; Ma, X.; Wang, D.; Xu, W.; Wu, G.; Gao, G. F.; Tan, W. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 727–733. doi:10.1056/nejmoa2001017 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  17. Algarroba, G. N.; Rekawek, P.; Vahanian, S. A.; Khullar, P.; Palaia, T.; Peltier, M. R.; Chavez, M. R.; Vintzileos, A. M. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 223, 275–278. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.023 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  18. Harcourt, J.; Tamin, A.; Lu, X.; Kamili, S.; Sakthivel, S. K.; Murray, J.; Queen, K.; Tao, Y.; Paden, C. R.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Uehara, A.; Wang, H.; Goldsmith, C.; Bullock, H. A.; Wang, L.; Whitaker, B.; Lynch, B.; Gautam, R.; Schindewolf, C.; Lokugamage, K. G.; Scharton, D.; Plante, J. A.; Mirchandani, D.; Widen, S. G.; Narayanan, K.; Makino, S.; Ksiazek, T. G.; Plante, K. S.; Weaver, S. C.; Lindstrom, S.; Tong, S.; Menachery, V. D.; Thornburg, N. J. Emerging Infect. Dis. 2020, 26, 1266–1273. doi:10.3201/eid2606.200516 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  19. Bouhaddou, M.; Memon, D.; Meyer, B.; White, K. M.; Rezelj, V. V.; Correa Marrero, M.; Polacco, B. J.; Melnyk, J. E.; Ulferts, S.; Kaake, R. M.; Batra, J.; Richards, A. L.; Stevenson, E.; Gordon, D. E.; Rojc, A.; Obernier, K.; Fabius, J. M.; Soucheray, M.; Miorin, L.; Moreno, E.; Koh, C.; Tran, Q. D.; Hardy, A.; Robinot, R.; Vallet, T.; Nilsson-Payant, B. E.; Hernandez-Armenta, C.; Dunham, A.; Weigang, S.; Knerr, J.; Modak, M.; Quintero, D.; Zhou, Y.; Dugourd, A.; Valdeolivas, A.; Patil, T.; Li, Q.; Hüttenhain, R.; Cakir, M.; Muralidharan, M.; Kim, M.; Jang, G.; Tutuncuoglu, B.; Hiatt, J.; Guo, J. Z.; Xu, J.; Bouhaddou, S.; Mathy, C. J. P.; Gaulton, A.; Manners, E. J.; Félix, E.; Shi, Y.; Goff, M.; Lim, J. K.; McBride, T.; O’Neal, M. C.; Cai, Y.; Chang, J. C. J.; Broadhurst, D. J.; Klippsten, S.; De wit, E.; Leach, A. R.; Kortemme, T.; Shoichet, B.; Ott, M.; Saez-Rodriguez, J.; tenOever, B. R.; Mullins, R. D.; Fischer, E. R.; Kochs, G.; Grosse, R.; García-Sastre, A.; Vignuzzi, M.; Johnson, J. R.; Shokat, K. M.; Swaney, D. L.; Beltrao, P.; Krogan, N. J. Cell 2020, 182, 685–712.e19. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.034 
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  20. Prasad, S.; Potdar, V.; Cherian, S.; Abraham, P.; Basu, A.; ICMR-NIV NIC Team. Indian J. Med. Res.2020, 151, 241–243. doi:10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_577_20 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  21. Wolff, G.; Limpens, R. W. A. L.; Zevenhoven-Dobbe, J. C.; Laugks, U.; Zheng, S.; de Jong, A. W. M.; Koning, R. I.; Agard, D. A.; Grünewald, K.; Koster, A. J.; Snijder, E. J.; Bárcena, M. Science 2020, 369,1395–1398. doi:10.1126/science.abd3629 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  22. Ward, B. W.; Notte, J. A.; Economou, N. P. J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B: Microelectron. Nanometer Struct.–Process., Meas., Phenom. 2006, 24, 2871. doi:10.1116/1.2357967 
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  23. Hlawacek, G.; Veligura, V.; van Gastel, R.; Poelsema, B. J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B: Nanotechnol. Microelectron.: Mater., Process., Meas., Phenom. 2014, 32,020801. doi:10.1116/1.4863676 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  24. “New Images of Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 Now Available”, NIAID Media Team, Feb 17, 2020, USA. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/novel-coronavirus-sarscov2-images (accessed Dec 1, 2020). 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  25. Joens, M. S.; Huynh, C.; Kasuboski, J. M.; Ferranti, D.; Sigal, Y. J.; Zeitvogel, F.; Obst, M.; Burkhardt, C. J.; Curran, K. P.; Chalasani, S. H.; Stern, L. A.; Goetze, B.; Fitzpatrick, J. A. J. Sci. Rep.2013, 3, 3514. doi:10.1038/srep03514 
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  26. Rothe, C.; Schunk, M.; Sothmann, P.; Bretzel, G.; Froeschl, G.; Wallrauch, C.; Zimmer, T.; Thiel, V.; Janke, C.; Guggemos, W.; Seilmaier, M.; Drosten, C.; Vollmar, P.; Zwirglmaier, K.; Zange, S.; Wölfel, R.; Hoelscher, M. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 970–971. doi:10.1056/nejmc2001468 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  27. Felgenhauer, U.; Schoen, A.; Gad, H. H.; Hartmann, R.; Schaubmar, A. R.; Failing, K.; Drosten, C.; Weber, F. J. Biol. Chem. 2020, 295, 13958–13964. doi:10.1074/jbc.ac120.013788 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  28. Bojkova, D.; Klann, K.; Koch, B.; Widera, M.; Krause, D.; Ciesek, S.; Cinatl, J.; Münch, C. Nature 2020,583, 469–472. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2332-7 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  29. Cohen-Tanugi, D.; Yao, N. J. Appl. Phys. 2008, 104, 063504. doi:10.1063/1.2976299 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  30. Bell, D. C. Microsc. Microanal. 2009, 15, 147–153. doi:10.1017/s1431927609090138 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  31. Ennos, A. E. Br. J. Appl. Phys. 1953, 4, 101–106. doi:10.1088/0508-3443/4/4/302 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  32. Isaacson, M. Ultramicroscopy 1979, 4, 193–199. doi:10.1016/s0304-3991(79)90193-1 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  33. Hren, J. J. Ultramicroscopy 1978, 3, 375–380. doi:10.1016/s0304-3991(78)80057-6 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  34. van Gastel, R.; Barriss, L.; Sanford, C.; Hlawacek, G.; Scipioni, L.; Merkle, A. P.; Voci, D.; Fenner, C.; Zandvliet, H. J. W.; Poelsema, B. Microsc. Microanal. 2011, 17 (Suppl. 2), 928–929. doi:10.1017/s1431927611005514 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  35. Hlawacek, G.; Veligura, V.; Lorbek, S.; Mocking, T. F.; George, A.; van Gastel, R.; Zandvliet, H. J. W.; Poelsema, B. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2012, 3, 507–512. doi:10.3762/bjnano.3.58 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  36. Veligura, V.; Hlawacek, G.; van Gastel, R.; Zandvliet, H. J. W.; Poelsema, B. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol.2012, 3, 501–506. doi:10.3762/bjnano.3.57 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  37. Wirtz, T.; De Castro, O.; Audinot, J.-N.; Philipp, P. Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2019, 12, 523–543. doi:10.1146/annurev-anchem-061318-115457 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  38. Wang, S.-M.; Huang, K.-J.; Wang, C.-T. Virology 2014, 449, 287–296. doi:10.1016/j.virol.2013.11.030 
    Return to citation in text: [1] [2]
  39. Caldas, L. A.; Carneiro, F. A.; Higa, L. M.; Monteiro, F. L.; da Silva, G. P.; da Costa, L. J.; Durigon, E. L.; Tanuri, A.; de Souza, W. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 16099. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-73162-5 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  40. Mahauad‐Fernandez, W. D.; Okeoma, C. M. Immun., Inflammation Dis. 2016, 4, 4–23. doi:10.1002/iid3.92
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  41. Berry, K. N.; Kober, D. L.; Su, A.; Brett, T. J. BioEssays 2018, 40, 1800086. doi:10.1002/bies.201800086 
    Return to citation in text: [1]
  42. Hammonds, J.; Wang, J.-J.; Yi, H.; Spearman, P. PLoS Pathog. 2010, 6, e1000749. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1000749 
    Return to citation in text: [1]


Amazon Sars-Cov-2 Variant More Contagious, Minister Claims

Authorities believe that the recent surge in COVID-19 infections is linked to the new variant.

Authorities believe that the recent surge in COVID-19 infections is linked to the new variant. | Photo: AFP

Pazuello has not provided evidence of such studies as the new SARS-CoV-2 is causing hundreds of deaths in Manaus, Amazon state.

Brazilian Health Minister Eduardo Pazuello has claimed that a SARS-CoV-2 mutation identified in the Amazon region be three times more contagious, although available COVID-1 vaccines can be effective against it.

“Thank God, we had clear news from the analysis that the vaccines still affect this variant. But it is more contagious. By our analysis, it is three times more contagious," the official said.

"Technicians from the Ministry of Health traveled to municipalities in the Amazon to make a diagnosis of the fight against #Covid19. Check out the actions taken by the Ministry of Health in the fight against Covid-19."

However, Pazuello has not provided evidence of such studies as the new SARS-CoV-2 kills hundreds in Manaus, Amazon state. The city was one of the hardest-hit Latin American municipalities last year and at the moment endures a sanitary crisis as it lacks oxygen and health devices for its patients as well as the medical staff.

On the other hand, the Butantan Institute in Sao Paulo and the Fiocruz biomedical center in Rio de Janeiro confirmed they are carrying independent studies on the efficacy of COVID-1 vaccines against the new variant; the first results will be ready within a couple of weeks. 

Could new COVID variants undermine vaccines? Labs scramble to find out


My Covid-19 Debunking Article, now Revised to include Major New Information on the Death-Counts due to Lockdowns, Forced-Masking and Economic Devastation

Newsletter by James DeMeo, PhD - February 2021

Click here for a browser view:


Greetings once again. This February OBRL Newsletter will be short and instructive, relating to my research paper:

A Critical Review of CDC USA Data on Covid-19: PCR/Antigen Tests and Cases Reveal Herd Immunity Only and Do Not Warrant Public Hysteria or Lockdowns

This paper was originally released in late December 2020, stimulating debate and discussion among professionals and others, leading to a most recent revision of it. The newer version reorders the sequence of chapters, with the most straightforward and convincing, visually-graphic materials placed at the top. Later on comes the more complex data calculations. Some materials originally in a "Postscript" or a separate "Supplementary File" were also incorporated into the new version. The most important addition, however, is a new section entitled The Death Toll from Lockdowns, Forced Masking & "Deaths by Despair". That subject was previously only touched upon, but is now upgraded to include discussion on what turns out to be a very large number of deaths as direct consequences of the lockdowns alone.

Locking down a society as we have done is unprecedented national suicide. It creates more unemployment, poverty, bankruptcies, depression, alcoholism, suicides and drug overdoses. There is also more family violence, child-abuse, self-abuse among children and adults, increased anomie and loneliness, violent robberies and homicides. The death data on those depressing categories is hardly known, as the 2020 Covid pandemic is too new for much study of the issues to have been made. But some studies have been undertaken, mostly by independent scholars, and published in different forums. The results of their work, which I surveyed and found to be sound and noteworthy, are now incorporated into my research paper, where careful extrapolations were made to assess the overall damages to the USA population for 2020.

My preliminary estimates suggest more people have died from these causes than are claimed to have died from claimed Covid-19 "infections". In fact, the "deaths due to Covid-19" may in fact be misidentifications of deaths due to existing comorbidites such as lung cancer, pneumonia, influenza, emphysema, diabetes, heart disease and so on, all of which are worsened among vulnerable populations by lockdowns, forced masking and "Deaths by Despair" factors.

These depressing new data are now incorporated into the revised copy of my research paper, and it is still available for free downloads from the same websites as before, from the websites given below.

Thanks for your interest and support.

James DeMeo, PhD

Revised Article on Covid-19 Flaws and Errors:

A Critical Review of CDC USA Data on Covid-19: PCR/Antigen Tests & Cases Reveal Herd Immunity Only, and Do Not Warrant Public Hysteria or Lockdowns

By James DeMeo, PhD. - revised February 2021

The revised article is ready for free download from either of these two services



The first page of the revised article is reproduced below followed by the Abstract and a few of the Figures in it.

Click on the above links to get the full article.


Basic all-cause US death data for 2020, when reviewed in light of a claimed Covid-19 pandemic, suggest most annual excess deaths are due to the physical consequences of lockdown-related mandates which create economic ruin and added emotional and somatic-pathological devastation within vulnerable populations.The CDC's data on Covid-19 lab-confirmed tests, cases and deaths were reviewed as plotted on the same ordinate vertical axis scale, indicating a high correlation between tests and cases, but no correlations or causality between either tests or cases to deaths. Covid-19 deaths among age-groups of high-risk elderly 65+ years and older, were found to be of nearly identical percentages as in all-cause deaths in the same age demographic. Daily death/case ratios failed to affirm any significant global growth or spread of an expected deadly viral pandemic. Claimed Covid-19 deaths followed a dominant seasonal wintertime pattern, peaking within the different winter months of the two hemispheres. These direct reviews of the official data exposed multiple contradictions to basic causality and logic, revealing observed pathology and deaths are primarily due to extreme lockdown measures undertaken to control a presumed viral pandemic, but not to any viral pandemic itself. Problems in PCR/Antigen tests and electron-microscopy for specific identification of SARS-CoV-2 were exposed, indicating the claimed Covid-19 lab tests and clinical diagnoses are, at high numbers, inaccurately mis-attributing ordinary end-of-life diseases and conditions to a poorly-demonstrated virus. This is why lab-confirmed cases among asymptomatic people who remain healthy have soared to dramatically high numbers, while lab-confirmed deaths have not. All-cause death data suggest respiratory disorders such as influenza or pneumonia are being inappropriately reclassified as Covid-19. Soaring "case" numbers reflect herd immunity only, while increased death numbers are due to comorbidities made worse in vulnerable populations by forced lockdowns and economic ruin.

Above Figure: Covid-19 deaths follow a wintertime seasonal pattern, mostly claiming the lives of elderly people 65 years and older, nearing their end-of-life with multiple co-morbidities. Covid-19 diagnoses are thereby confused with typical wintertime epochs of influenza, pneumonia and other respiratory diseases and disorders, in periods of cold-wet conditions.

Above Figure: Soaring Covid-19 "confirmed cases" do not predict "confirmed deaths". No causality can be inferred from such widely divergent data streams. Lab-testing by PCR is highly flawed, and does not predict who gets sick or stays healthy, much less who lives or dies. Soaring cases indicate Herd Immunity only!

This article is ready for free download from either of these two services



OBRL Activities in 2021:

The onset of the Covid-19 hysteria in early 2020 created special problems for most everyone. Looking down the road, it appears difficult to imagine that any conference or public lectures will take place this year, unless the lockdowns and masking dictates are rescinded. Hopes for that are supported by meager evidence. "Top" dictators in Washington DC and in state capitols, are even today figuring on extending lockdowns until the end of 2021, and in a few cases "forever". Masking dictates are also now spoken about as being required outdoors, even when alone driving your car. And some want to make wearing two masks at once a regulation. These are emotionally sick people, psychopaths aiming for destruction of the American Republic, and hopefully the American people will collectively see through their propaganda and dictates, and collectively resist them.

Meanwhile, I am invited to speak at two conferences this year, one in Germany and another in the USA, and so hope the lockdown madness will end. We may organize a Zoom conference on one or another topic, or maybe just an open discussion group for a few hours each week or two. That could give like-minded people with an interest in Reich's work, and my work, to at least meet and cut through the isolation being imposed upon us all.

Research here will resume, of course, and my long-stated opening of the video archives will take place.




First published on bitchute February 10th, 2021.

channel image



In this video we would like to introduce Project Immanuel, which critically examines the scientific background of the so-called "Corona Crisis." With the help of the natural scientist and virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, all fundamental publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 are closely scrutinised and scientifically examined in a series of posts.
Our main objective is to make science understandable to everyone. All the necessary technical terms and scientific procedures of virology and microbiology that one needs to know and understand are explained in a way that is easy for everyone to comprehend and illustrated with many examples.

This is a scientific project. This means, for one thing, that although we are very critical of all that has been done and has happened in the Corona crisis, we always remain neutral. We do not take sides with anyone, nor do we condemn anyone. We analyse everything from a purely scientific medical point of view.
It also means that we emphatically ask you, the viewer, not to simply believe any of our statements! On the contrary, doubt, be critical and question us. Anyone who can refute our statements is hereby cordially invited to do so, but should do so with tangible, verifiable facts. If we have really made mistakes, we are happy to correct them.

Behind Project Immanuel is a small group of independent filmmakers who want to help bring into the public domain scientific facts that are ignored by the majority of people only because they do not conform to the predominant worldview and accepted consensus.

- - -

Project Immanuel is a non-profit project. Our contributions shall be freely accessible and are intended for all people. Provided that absolutely NOTHING is changed in our publications, any of our videos and documents may be downloaded, shared and re-uploaded on your own channels. For our videos, the complete video description must also be included!
You can find out on which platforms and in which languages our reports are published by visiting our website.

- - -

If you would like to contact us, please use the following address: 

All information about new posts can be found on our website and in our Telegram group.
Website: www.projekt-immanuel.de
Telegram: t.me/projekt_immanuel

Bitchute: www.bitchute.com/projekt-immanuel
Dailymotion: https://www.dailymotion.com/dm_098181bca1aded04ba222830d0d2da6e
Odysee: https://odysee.com/@Projekt-Immanuel:3


Monoclonal antibodies: 'great hope' in Covid treatments fails against variants

Exclusive: no leading contender is effective against all the South African, Brazilian and Kent variants

A worker in an Italian lab producing a monoclonal antibody treatment for Eli Lilly.

A worker in an Italian lab producing a monoclonal antibody treatment for Eli Lilly. Photograph: Riccardo Antimiani/EPA

By  - 02. February 2021

The great hope for drug treatments against Covid-19 – the monoclonal antibodies – are failing against variants of the virus, such as those that have emerged in South Africa and Brazil, scientists have found.

There have been high expectations of the drugs. One, made by Regeneron in the United States, was given to Donald Trump and may have played a part in his recovery. It is being trialled in hospital patients in the UK.

But to the dismay of those who work on therapies against the disease, all three leading contenders – Regeneron’s, and drugs from Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline – fail against one or more of the variants.

The antibodies have huge advantages as treatments, said Nick Cammack, who leads the Covid-19 therapeutics accelerator at Wellcome. They are derived from cloning a human white blood cell and mimic the effects of the immune system. They are very safe, specifically engineered to target the virus and their use looked highly promising in the early stage of disease to stop it progressing.

“The challenge came at Christmas when these new variants appeared – the South Africa and Brazil ones particularly. The changes the virus makes in its spike proteins actually throw off these antibodies,” he said.

“So basically, most of the front-running antibody therapies for Covid which are the front-running therapies for Covid, I should say – so the great hope – are lost to the South African and Brazilian variants.”

GlaxoSmithKline’s treatment still works against those variants, but not against the one that emerged in Kent in the UK. But with the coronavirus mutating as much as it has done already, Cammack does not expect any of the current drugs to to be effective for long.

Researchers now need to find “conserved” regions of the virus that do not mutate to target with antibodies. “I think it’s pretty clear, whilst we’ve seen South Africa, UK and Brazil variants, there will be others. And we need mass sequencing, genetic sequencing of the virus around the world, which will reveal where the changes are made and also reveal where conserved regions are,” he said.

Coronavirus variants: what you need to know – video explainer

The drugs still work against the original virus and are being used in Europe and the United States.

The monoclonal antibodies were chosen to target the spike protein of the virus which attaches to cells in the human body. In general, he said, that region of the virus does not change much, because if it does, it won’t attach so well to cells.

“Well, here we are with a virus that makes a change that actually helps it stick to the cell even better. So these monoclonals are lost,” said Cammack. “So we’re somewhat back to square one honestly.”

Limited published scientific data about the variants and monoclonal antibodies exists – there is a pre-print from South Africa and another from China. More papers are expected in the coming weeks.

Monoclonal antibodies “are one of the most powerful tools in modern medicine” according to a recent Wellcome report on extending access to people in low and middle-income countries. They are used in cancers and auto-immune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, and are being trialled against HIV.

But they are expensive and relatively difficult to make, so only wealthy countries have really benefited from them as yet. The hope, said Lindsay Keir, author of the report, is that Covid might be a catalyst to get them to the rest of the world.

“Covid has highlighted the potential for them to be used for other diseases such as infectious diseases as well. But we haven’t quite yet been able to show a simple pathway to make monoclonal antibodies accessible to everyone,” she said.

There are more antibody treatments already in Covid trials, she said. “It’s not about starting from scratch.”

In the face of the challenge, the companies were working together, Cammack said. Combined drugs, such as that in the trial announced last week by GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly, could be an important part of the answer.


 is The Guardian Health editor, whose department is financed by the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation


The non-existent virus: it undercuts all other stories

The Matrix RevealedBy Jon Rappoport - 01. February 2021

In this article, I continue to trace the implications of the missing virus; I’m referring to the fact the no one has proved SARS-CoV-2 exists.

Here I take a wider look at the situation.

Apparently, the notion of a virus was born when germ theorists ran out of bacteria to explain illnesses. So they claimed there had to be a smaller invisible particle, which came to be called “virus.”

Since that fateful choice, researchers have encountered various problems. Chief among them: how do you to prove, in specific instances, that these viruses exist and cause illness?

Flashing forward—two modern avenues of proof have been invented. One, twist and reverse the meaning of “isolation.” And two, sequence the genetic structure of viruses by using pre-set computer programs to build, out of thin air, without justification, collections of genetic information, ending up with nothing more than virtual entities.

In past articles, I’ve analyzed and rejected both avenues of “research.”

In the first case, there is the unjustified presumption that the virus is contained in a soup in a dish in a lab, and this is called “isolation,” when it is actually non-isolation. In the second case, there is no true sequencing. It’s all made up out of unmerited supposition and guesswork.

However, 99.9% of mainstream scientists are true believers in their own methods and fabrications. They actually accept what they’re doing as science.

Therefore, in virology labs all over the world—including bio-weapons facilities—THE RESEARCHERS HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY’RE DOING. THEY DON’T KNOW HOW FAR FROM REALITY THEY ACTUALLY ARE.


They’re taken in and fooled and bamboozled by their own theories.

It’s as if explorers tasked with mapping the moon, on site, up close and personal, are carrying out their jobs in underground coal mines. And they don’t recognize there is a problem.

The tenth of one percent of the researchers who do see a problem understand they have to keep their mouths shut.

Am I claiming, with finality, that ALL “viruses” have no physical existence? No. At least, not yet. That’s an open question.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2, I see no legitimate evidence for its existence.

And what’s worse, scientists are hypnotized by their own assumptions; and therefore, they’re immune from re-thinking what they’re doing.

It certainly wouldn’t be the first time a system trapped the practitioners working inside it.

It’s how you train humans to be robots.

At first, the humans follow the rules that define the system. Then they graduate to enforcing the rules. Their minds become excessively literal. They view alternatives as heresies.

“Sir, you have no idea what you’re doing. You think you’re discovering new viruses. You think you’re manipulating them to create new forms.”

“Don’t bother me, I’m busy.”

“You’re saying non-isolation is isolation. You’re using algorithms to invent ‘viruses’ made up of irrelevant data. They’re data constructs, nothing more.”

“You’re a blasphemer. Don’t bother me, I’m busy.”

“You’re fiddling with processes that have nothing to do with what you think they have to do with…”

“How did you get into my lab?”

“I brought a camera crew. We want to film and document every single step you take to ‘discover a new virus’.”

“Absolutely not. You’re not official. This is a high-security facility.”

“In other words, sight unseen, we have to accept your claims as if they were law.”

“Yes, that’s the rule. We’re not running a debating society. We’re doing science.”

“But you see, that’s the point. You’re NOT doing science.”

“What are you saying?”

“You have no idea what you’re doing. You THINK you’re discovering new viruses. You BELIEVE you’re manipulating them. But you’re only working with self-generated fantasies.”

“I’ll tell you what. I’ll inject you with one of these fantasies and let’s see what happens.”

“You don’t possess an actual specimen of an isolated and purified virus, separated from all other material.”

“Here it is, in this dish.”

“No. LOOK AT IT. In that dish, there’s a soup. It contains human and monkey cells, toxic drugs and chemicals, and other genetic material. It’s the furthest thing from ‘isolated’.”

“We know the virus is there. Some of the cells are dying. The virus must be doing the killing.”

“No. The toxic drugs and chemicals could be doing the killing. Furthermore, the cells are being starved of nutrients. That alone can explain their death. Think it through.”

“There’s nothing to think about. Our procedures have been verified by thousands of studies and published scientific papers.”

“Consensus is not the same thing as truth.”

“Security, come to the lab. We have a non-certified intruder. Escort him from the premises.”

“That’s your bottom line?”

“Our work is classified. You’re a civilian. We pronounce; you obey.”

“And that’s science?”

“Absolutely. Didn’t they teach you that in school?”

“YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU’RE DOING IN THIS LAB. You’re a prisoner of your own illusions.”

“Security, hurry it up. This man is a subversive…”

“Suppose you believe you’re working with viruses, but you’re only working with IDEAS AND STORIES ABOUT VIRUSES?”

“What do you mean?”

“You’re not really isolating anything. And you’re not sequencing anything. The sequences are just INFORMATION cobbled together from genetic reference libraries by computer programs. It’s all, at best, a digital metaphor for what you believe exists. You’re generating fairy tales.”

“Even if that were true, it would be the closest we could come to reality. Nothing is perfect.”

“A rock is perfect. You see it, you kick it, you sit on it.”

“Viruses are very small.”

“Even more reason to be sure you’re dealing with something actual.”

“We use PCR technology.”

“But it only looks for a piece of RNA you ASSUME comes from ‘the virus’. Since you don’t have an isolated and purified virus, you have no reason to assume the RNA comes from ‘the virus’.”

“Security, take this man to his car. Take the film crew with him. They have no right to be here. This is a government-funded facility. Private citizens have no access to government.”

CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER: “Actually, I’d like to hear the rest of the conversation. My sister just took the vaccine to protect her against ‘the virus’, and now she’s in the hospital…”


Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALEDEXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his freeOutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealedclick here.


The 2000 Euro Antidote-Pop for the Elite

Coronavirus: Germany to use new antibody-based drug

Health Minister Jens Spahn has said the government has purchased a new drug to help fight COVID-19 amid a vaccine shortage. Germany will be the first EU nation to use the medicine, which was also given to Donald Trump.

By DW - 24. January 2021

Health Minister Jens Spahn speaks

Spahn said the pandemic requires not just 'decisive government action,' but also 'responsible behavior by everyone'

Health Minister Jens Spahn told German newspaper Bild am Sonntag that the government had purchased a new antibody-based drug to fight the coronavirus.

"Starting next week, the monoclonal antibodies will be used in Germany as the first country in the EU. Initially in university clinics," he said. "The federal government has bought 200,000 doses for €400 million ($487 million)."

Former US President Donald Trump was treated with this form of antibody treatment after he was infected with the coronavirus last October, Spahn said.

"They act like a passive vaccination. Administering these antibodies in the early stages can help high-risk patients avoid a more serious progression," he added.

Trump, who was briefly hospitalized with the virus, was treated with the REGN-COV2 antibody cocktail from US company Regeneron. 

Spahn warns against assigning blame

Spahn has recently come under fire for a slower-than-expected rollout of vaccines in Germany, despite his earlier warnings that there would be a limited supply of shots in the early stages of the inoculation drive. Berlin has said it expects to be able to offer all Germans a jab by the end of August.

Speaking with Bild, Spahn warned against assigning blame during the pandemic, following growing criticism of the country's vaccine shortage.

"We should be careful that 2021 does not become the year of blame," Spahn told Bild. "Talking about mistakes and failures is important. But without it becoming relentless and only being about shifting blame onto others."

He acknowledged that Germany had been too hesitant in acting to combat the pandemic, but added that politicians and citizens shared responsibility for the high infection rates and death toll in the outbreak's second wave.

"We all had the deceptive feeling that we had the virus well under control. We suspected the force with which the coronavirus could return, but the vast majority did not want to admit it," he said.

Experts warn against lifting restrictions

Spahn ruled out lifting coronavirus restrictions for vaccinated people until there is a vaccination available for all citizens.

"We've stood in solidarity through this pandemic for a year. Now we might as well all play by the rules for the remaining months until everyone can be vaccinated," he said.

Germany has extended its nationwide lockdown until February 14, despite increasing calls for some measures to be eased. Epidemiologists in the country have said the debate is premature.

"From an epidemiological point of view, it is not clear to me why an early easing [of restrictions] is being discussed now," Hajo Zeeb of the Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology told Germany's dpa news agency, citing ongoing "deadly" infection rates.

Eva Grill, president of the German Society for Epidemiology, said she was deeply concerned: "If the current lockdown is relaxed too soon we risk a third wave, which will hit us harder because the new virus variant is much more contagious." 

Germany has recorded 2,134,936 coronavirus cases with 51,870 deaths, according to the latest data from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) for infectious diseases. 

Germany should have been 'tougher'

Spahn acknowledged that Germany should have taken tougher measures as early as October when infection rates were lower.

"It takes decisive government action, but it also takes responsible behavior from everyone. We are all in the same boat," he said.

Back in April, Spahn appealed for increased understanding for difficult political decisions during the coronavirus crisis. He also warned that measures were likely to change depending on the various phases of the pandemic.

mvb/nm (dpa, KNA, AFP)


‘A bloody mess’: Confusion reigns over naming of new COVID variants

As more lineages emerge, researchers are struggling with a patchwork of nomenclature.

By Ewen Callaway - 

A health worker writes name of a person on a tube after collecting swab sample for COVID-19 test, India.

New variants of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 are being identified around the world. Credit: David Talukdar / NurPhoto / Getty

Would a virus by any other name spread so fast? As scientists identify more and more potentially worrying variants of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, they are grappling with just what to call them. At a 12 January World Health Organization (WHO) meeting devoted to coronavirus variants, health officials and researchers started hashing out a new naming system.

“I think all of us are becoming very confused by the different variant names,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, an infectious-disease epidemiologist and COVID-19 technical lead for the WHO in Geneva, Switzerland, at the meeting.

That much is clear — there is no one-size-fits-all approach for naming variants of SARS-CoV-2. When a fast-spreading SARS-CoV-2 variant was identified in the United Kingdom in late 2020, Public Health England initially named it Variant Under Investigation 202012/01 (VUI 202012/01 for short); then, after a risk assessment, it was dubbed Variant of Concern 202012/01 (or VOC 202012/01).

One naming system that researchers developed to indicate the evolutionary relationships between SARS-CoV-2 lineages calls the same variant B.1.1.7, whereas another with the same goal dubs it 20I/501Y.V1. ‘The UK variant’ is popular in the media — although some British newspapers have even described it as ‘the Kent variant’, after the county in southeast England that first saw a spike in transmissions associated with the lineage. Variants identified in South Africa and Brazil have received similar monikers. Terms such as ‘variant’, ‘lineage’ and ‘strain’ add to the confusion, because they have no unambiguous definitions and are sometimes used interchangeably.

Avoiding stigma

Because of the relevance to the public, “I can see the need for a more straightforward way of naming the variants of concern,” says Oliver Pybus, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who co-developed a naming system that describes1 the relationships between the various early lineages of SARS-CoV-2 and their evolutionary descendants. This is the source of the name B.1.1.7, in which each successive character denotes a subgroup of the preceding one. “There are already naming schemes for all these lineages, but they’re mostly of relevance to phylogenetics geeks like me,” says Pybus.

Experts also want to do away with names that associate a variant with the country or region in which it was identified. “We would like this nomenclature to be easily understood and not include country names, because we want to remove any of the geopolitical issues,” Van Kerkhove said. “We are trying to avoid ‘the UK variant’, ‘the South African variant’, ‘the Brazil variant’ — and there will be more variants.”

Variants are not necessarily identified in the country where they emerged, and fast-spreading variants such as B.1.1.7 (or VOC 202012/01, if you prefer) that are spotted in one nation will eventually spill out into the wider world. Geographical associations could also stigmatize countries and so discourage surveillance, Pybus adds. “The last thing we want to do is dissuade any particular place from reporting they’ve got a new concerning variant — in fact, we want to do the opposite.”

When South African researchers identified a worrying variant2, they avoided including the country in its name at the request of South Africa’s president and health minister, says team member Tulio de Oliveira, a bioinformatician at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban. They opted to call it 501Y.V2; it is now also called B.1.351 under the system that Pybus’s team developed. Until researchers agree on a less confusing naming system, de Oliviera expects the media and public to continue to use ‘the South African variant’. “The nomenclature is a bloody mess at the moment,” he adds.

Mutation specific

Some scientists also want to do away with names that flag individual mutations. De Oliveira’s team called the variant that it identified 501Y.V2, because it carries a substitution in the 501st amino acid site of the virus’s spike protein that changes the residue there from an asparagine to a tyrosine (denoted Y in biochemical shorthand). That name helped connect hundreds of researchers in disparate fields studying the effects of the mutation, says de Oliveira, but it also omits other important changes in the variant.

B.1.351 carries several other potentially worrying changes to the spike protein that might affect immune responses, including changes denoted 484K and 417N. One possibility being floated is to name worrying variants after the constellations of mutations they carry, says Emma Hodcroft, a molecular epidemiologist at the University of Bern, Switzerland, who is part of Nextstrain, the SARS-CoV-2 naming effort that called the ‘UK variant’ 20I/501Y.V1. In that way, disparate variants carrying similar sets of important mutations would earn similar names.

Researchers did not settle on a new naming system for concerning variants at the WHO meeting. Pybus, who is part of a working group tackling the issue, thinks a new system should go hand in hand with identification criteria. As evidence such as epidemiological or laboratory studies builds up, a name could reflect the heightened (or allayed) concerns surrounding a particular variant, “almost like a traffic light system”, he says.

Hodcroft agrees that there is confusion in how variants are named, but she isn’t sure that yet another new naming system will solve the problem. “We need to be cautious.”

Nature 589, 339 (2021)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00097-w


  1. Rambaut, A. et al. Nature Microbiol. 5, 1403–1407 (2020).

    PubMed Article Google Scholar 

  2. Tegally, H. et al. Preprint at MedRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.21.20248640 (2020).


COVID News and The Resistance

•Jul 9, 2020

Pamela Popper

Subscribe to Dr. Pam’s weekly newsletter and video clips here! https://wellnessforumhealth.com/news/

Give us a call at 614-841-7700.

You can find Pam on BitChute under the channel WellnessForumHealth

Check out https://makeamericansfreeagain.com/


The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation

BY DR. SCOTT W. ATLAS — 22. April 2020

The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be entering the containment phase. Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts. Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function.

Imperial CollegeWikimedia Commons, Vinceesq

Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown.

Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.

The recent Stanford University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies.  

In New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic with more than one-third of all U.S. deaths, the rate of death for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01 percent, or 10 per 100,000 in the population. On the other hand, people aged 75 and over have a death rate 80 times that. For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000. 

Of all fatal cases in New York state, two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.

Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.

We can learn about hospital utilization from data from New York City, the hotbed of COVID-19 with more than 34,600 hospitalizations to date. For those under 18 years of age, hospitalization from the virus is 0.01 percent, or 11 per 100,000 people; for those 18 to 44 years old, hospitalization is 0.1 percent. Even for people ages 65 to 74, only 1.7 percent were hospitalized. Of 4,103 confirmed COVID-19 patients with symptoms bad enough to seek medical care, Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Medical Center concluded "age is far and away the strongest risk factor for hospitalization." Even early WHO reports noted that 80 percent of all cases were mild, and more recent studies show a far more widespread rate of infection and lower rate of serious illness. Half of all people testing positive for infection have no symptoms at all. The vast majority of younger, otherwise healthy people do not need significant medical care if they catch this infection.

Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response — antibodies — so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by “herd immunity.” Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing.

Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.

Critical health care for millions of Americans is being ignored and people are dying to accommodate “potential” COVID-19 patients and for fear of spreading the disease. Most states and many hospitals abruptly stopped “nonessential” procedures and surgery. That prevented diagnoses of life-threatening diseases, like cancer screening, biopsies of tumors now undiscovered and potentially deadly brain aneurysms. Treatments, including emergency care, for the most serious illnesses were also missed. Cancer patients deferred chemotherapy. An estimated 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Acute stroke and heart attack patients missed their only chances for treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability.

Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

The overwhelming evidence all over the world consistently shows that a clearly defined group — older people and others with underlying conditions — is more likely to have a serious illness requiring hospitalization and more likely to die from COVID-19. Knowing that, it is a commonsense, achievable goal to target isolation policy to that group, including strictly monitoring those who interact with them. Nursing home residents, the highest risk, should be the most straightforward to systematically protect from infected people, given that they already live in confined places with highly restricted entry.

The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions. This would allow the essential socializing to generate immunity among those with minimal risk of serious consequence, while saving lives, preventing overcrowding of hospitals and limiting the enormous harms compounded by continued total isolation. Let’s stop underemphasizing empirical evidence while instead doubling down on hypothetical models. Facts matter.


Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.



One month ago, I wrote The Common Roots Of Climate Change And COVID-19 Hysteria that demonstrated the disingenuous fear-mongering tactics of global warming alarmists as they used COVID-19 to purposely spark the largest global economic event in history.

Climate alarmists have long wanted to kill the “brown economy” and replace it with a “green” form of Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. Less than 30 days after the Imperial College released their initial data model that predicted 500,000 deaths in the UK and 1.2 million in the U.S., their whole narrative is now falling apart, but the damage has already been done and cannot be reversed.

The World Health Organization is a full-fledged agency of the United Nations, which drives the above mentioned climate alarmists. The WHO’s estimated mortality rate is 20-30 times higher than the actual death rate being reported by Stanford University of between 0.1 and 0.2 percent.

The number of actual deaths from COVID-19 would not likely be changed if no stampede was ever triggered in the first place. Perhaps it would only have been a nastier-than-usual flu season. However, the Great Panic of 2020 has caused innumerable non coronavirus-related deaths and has torpedoed the global economic system. Millions of people are out of work. Tens of thousands of businesses are already permanently shuttered. People that need health care are scared to death to present themselves to a hospital.

The reality is that the few fear-mongering Technocrats who knew exactly what they were doing when they figuratively yelled “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, will never be held accountable for their despicable and fraudulent manipulation of society. Concerned citizens should stop obsessing over who made COVID-19 and the street-corner where it first appeared, and instead focus on the real instigators and their real motivations. ⁃ TN Editor



Freemason's must always hide the truth in plain sight


Millions watch TV where dramas show us corrupt politicians, evil and grifting. Films and TV have complex plots of fraud and deception often involving the types of people we were taught to trust, such as doctors, nurses and religious people. Millions have read the dystopian stories of George Orwell. Now all this and more is really happening in front of our eyes and barely 5%, if that, see the fake pandemic, or understand the absolute evil of the unnecessary 'vaccine'. The film CONTAGION is another good example.


Re-published on BITCHUTE March 5th, 2021.


Incapacitating Agents

Incapacitating agents are defined by the Department of Defense as “an agent that produces temporary physiological or mental effects, or both, which will render individuals incapable of concerted effort in the performance of their assigned duties” and are not intended to be lethal (Romano et al., 2008). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) speaks of Specific Chemical Agents when they refer to bio-chemical weapons like 3-Quinuclidinyl Benzilate (BZ).

From: Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents (Second Edition), 2015

Related terms:

Incapacitating Agents (ICA)

ICA is a chemical agent that produces a temporary disabling condition that persists for hours to days after exposure (unlike the short-term effects of RCAs). ICAs temporarily impair the performance of the central nervous system (CNS). ICAs (1) are highly potent; (2) alter the regulatory activity of the CNS; (3) have duration of action of hours to days; (4) are not dangerous to life except at many times the effective dose; and (5) are not likely to produce permanent injury. These criteria eliminate many drugs, such as various opiates and sedatives, from use as ICAs. Such agents pass the blood–brain barrier and interfere with higher brain functions. Medical treatment after exposure to an ICA may not be necessary but may facilitate recovery.


Biological and Chemical Weapons

Browse this alphabetical list of the most commonly known biological and chemical agents. Click on each one to get more information. And see category definitions below.



















Food poisoning

































Viral encephalitis



Viral hemorragic fevers(like Ebola)







Category Definitions

Biological Diseases/Agents

The CDC divides biological diseases and agents into categories according to their threat to national security. The top two categories are:

Category A agents

  • Easily disseminated or transmitted from person to person
  • Result in high mortality rates and have the potential for major public health impact
  • Might cause public panic and social disruption
  • Require special action for public health preparedness

Category B agents

  • Moderately easy to disseminate or transmit from person to person
  • Result in moderate public health impact and low death rates
  • Require enhancements of CDC's diagnostic and disease surveillance abilities

Chemical Agents

Most chemical warfare agents are liquids that evaporate into vapors at varying rates. As effective weapons, they would need to be widely spread by a spray or explosion indoors. Outdoors, even small breezes disperse dangerous vapors.

Blister agents (vesicants)

  • Inhaled or absorbed via contact with skin
  • Affect eyes, airways, skin, gastrointestinal tract
  • Cause large, often life-threatening blisters that resemble burns

Blood agents

  • Generally inhaled, distributed through blood
  • Inhibit the body's ability to use oxygen effectively
  • Cause body to "suffocate" from lack of oxygen

Nerve agents

  • Block a key enzyme, which allows a chemical buildup at key places in the nervous system, causing hyperactivity of muscles and organs
  • Absorbed through skin or lungs by liquid or vapor exposure
  • Affect eyes, nose, airways, gastrointestinal tract, muscles, central nervous system (brain and spinal cord)

Choking (pulmonary) agents

  • Inhaled and absorbed through lungs
  • Irritate nose, throat, and lungs
  • Cause fluid to build in lungs, effectively "drowning" victim

WebMD Medical Reference Reviewed by Sabrina Felson, MD on February 08, 2019


© 2019 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved.


Biological and/or Chemical weapon?

The differences between biological and chemical weapons lie in their makeup, dissemination, and effects. Here are some typical differences between the two. Remember, though, any effects depends on the specific agents used.

Biological Agents

Chemical Agents

Natural origin


Difficult, costly, small-scale production

Large-scale, cheaper, industrial production

Odorless and tasteless

Many have noticeable odor or taste. One exception is sarin gas, which is both odorless and tasteless.

Disseminated as aerosols in air or in water or food

Disseminated as aerosols or liquids

Most won't penetrate skin

Can penetrate skin

Delayed onset of physical effects

Oftem has immediate physical effects

Crisis measured in weeks, months

Crisis typically measured in hours, days

Delayed response that would build

Immediate, large response for some agents. Delayed for others.

Do chemical agents have any legitimate, practical uses?

Chemicals that are closely related to chemical weapons do have legitimate uses. Some nerve agents, for example, are similar to some insecticides and to medications that treat the disease myasthenia gravis. A byproduct of sulfur mustard is a long-time cancerchemotherapy drug. Chlorine and phosgene are also common industrial compounds.

Are chemical weapons allowed to be used in war?

The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention bans the use, production, stockpiling, or acquisition of chemical weapons, requires the elimination of current stockpiles, and allows verification inspections. The United States and 191 other countries have agreed to the treaty.

Are biological agents allowed to be used in war?

The 1972 Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention bans the use, production, stockpiling, or acquisition of biological weapons. It does allow research with agents for vaccines or defensive purposes. The treaty does not include formal verification, so its effectiveness is limited. The United States and 177 other countries have agreed to it.

Should I have my own supply of antibiotics in case I'm exposed to biological weapons?

Antibiotics are prescription drugs that should be taken only under a doctor's advice. No one antibiotic can protect against all types of biological weapons -- or against all diseases. And holding on to antibiotics isn't a good idea because they'll expire eventually and become ineffective.

Should I have a gas mask to protect myself against chemical and biological weapons?

Gas masks do not provide protection unless you are wearing one at the exact moment of an attack with chemical or biological weapons. It's obviously impractical to wear a gas mask all the time. Besides, to work effectively, masks must be fitted to the wearer, who must be trained how to use them -- such as members of the military. Gas masks available for retail sale aren't guaranteed to work. There's also the possibility of accidental suffocation from wearing a mask incorrectly.

Can I get vaccinated against biological weapons -- anthrax, plague, smallpox, or other diseases -- that might be spread by terrorists?

No. Anthrax and smallpox vaccines are not available to the general public. Doctors and hospitals don't have vaccine supplies for these like they do for other viruses. They would be made available only in emergency situations and to those who would be most likely to be exposed.

Are there enough drugs to go around in case of a widespread outbreak or attack with chemical or biological weapons?

The government has gathered enough smallpox vaccine for everyone in the U.S. in the event of a smallpox attack. No such supply is available for anthrax (only military personnel have been getting vaccinated against anthrax). And there currently is no vaccine available for the plague, but one is being developed. Antibiotics are the first line of defense against anthrax, the plague, and most other bacterial biological threats. Antidotes can treat those who have been exposed to some chemical agents.

The CDC's National Pharmaceutical Stockpile Program sets aside a large supply of antibiotics, chemical antidotes, and other supplies in case of emergency. The goal is to send materials within 12 hours of notification to any U.S. location in the event of a terrorist attack with a biological or chemical agent. The program is a backup to local response and is deployed upon request by the states. The U.S. federal government has made arrangements with pharmaceutical companies to make large amounts of additional emergency supplies.


Biological agent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                                  A culture of Bacillus anthracis, the causative agent of anthrax.

biological agent (also called bio-agentbiological threat agentbiological warfare agentbiological weapon, or bioweapon) is a bacteriumvirusprotozoanparasite, or fungus that can be used purposefully as a weapon in bioterrorism or biological warfare (BW).[1] In addition to these living or replicating pathogenstoxins and biotoxins are also included among the bio-agents. More than 1,200 different kinds of potentially weaponizable bio-agents have been described and studied to date.

Biological agents have the ability to adversely affect human health in a variety of ways, ranging from relatively mild allergic reactions to serious medical conditions, including serious injury, as well as serious or permanent disability or even death. Many of these organisms are ubiquitous in the natural environment where they are found in water, soil, plants, or animals.[1] Bio-agents may be amenable to "weaponization" to render them easier to deploy or disseminate. Genetic modification may enhance their incapacitating or lethal properties, or render them impervious to conventional treatments or preventives. Since many bio-agents reproduce rapidly and require minimal resources for propagation, they are also a potential danger in a wide variety of occupational settings.[1]

The Biological Weapons Convention (1972) is an international treaty banning the use or stockpiling of bio-agents; as of February 2015, there were 171 state signatories.[2] Bio-agents are, however, widely studied for both defensive and general medical purposes under various biosafety levels and within biocontainment facilities throughout the world.


  • 1Classifications
    • 1.1Operational
    • 1.2Legal
    • 1.3Regulatory
  • 2List of bio-agents of military importance
    • 2.1Bacterial bio-agents
    • 2.2Chlamydial bio-agents
    • 2.3Rickettsial bio-agents
    • 2.4Viral bio-agents
    • 2.5Mycotic bio-agents
    • 2.6Biological toxins
    • 2.7Biological vectors
    • 2.8Simulants
  • 3In popular culture
  • 4See also
  • 5References
  • 6External links



The former US biological warfare program (1943-1969) categorized its weaponized anti-personnel bio-agents as either "lethal agents" (Bacillus anthracisFrancisella tularensis, Botulinum toxin) or "incapacitating agents" (Brucella suisCoxiella burnetii, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Staphylococcal enterotoxin B).[3]


Since 1997, United States law has declared a list of bio-agents designated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or the U.S. Department of Agriculture that have the "potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety" to be officially defined as "select agents" and possession or transportation of them are tightly controlled as such.[4] Select agents are divided into "HHS select agents and toxins", "USDA select agents and toxins" and "Overlap select agents and toxins".


The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) breaks biological agents into three categories: Category A, Category B, and Category C. Category A agents pose the greatest threat to the U.S. Criteria for being a Category "A" agent include high rates of morbidity and mortality; ease of dissemination and communicability; ability to cause a public panic; and special action required by public health officials to respond. Category A agents include anthrax, botulism, plague, smallpox, tularemia, and viral hemorrhagic fevers.

List of bio-agents of military importance

The following pathogens and toxins were weaponized by one nation or another at some time. NATO abbreviations are included where applicable.

Bacterial bio-agents

Disease Causative Agent (Military Symbol)
Anthrax Bacillus anthracis (N or TR)
Brucellosis (bovine) Brucella abortus
Brucellosis (caprine) Brucella melitensis (AM or BX)
Brucellosis (porcine) Brucella suis (US, AB or NX)
Cholera Vibrio cholerae (HO)
Diphtheria Corynebacterium diphtheriae (DK)
Dysentery (bacterial) Shigella dysenteriae, some species of Escherichia coli (Y)
Glanders Burkholderia mallei (LA)
Listeriosis Listeria monocytogenes (TQ)
Melioidosis Burkholderia pseudomallei (HI)
Plague Yersinia pestis (LE)
Tularemia Francisella tularensis (SR or JT)

Chlamydial bio-agents

Disease Causative Agent (Military Symbol)
Psittacosis Chlamydophila psittaci (SI)

Rickettsial bio-agents

Disease Causative Agent (Military Symbol)
Q Fever Coxiella burnetii (OU)
Rocky Mountain spotted fever Rickettsia rickettsii (RI or UY)
Typhus (human) Rickettsia prowazekii (YE)
Typhus (murine) Rickettsia typhi (AV)

Viral bio-agents

Disease Causative Agent (Military Symbol) Comments
Equine Encephalitis (Eastern) Eastern equine encephalitis virus (ZX)  
Equine Encephalitis (Venezuelan) Venezuelan Equine Encephalomyelitis virus (FX)  
Equine Encephalitis (Western) Western equine encephalitis virus (EV)  
Japanese B encephalitis Japanese encephalitis virus (AN)  
Marburg Hemorrhagic Fever (Marburg HF) Marburg Virus (MARV) by the Soviet Union[5]
Rift Valley fever Rift Valley fever virus (FA)  
Smallpox Variola virus (ZL)  
Yellow fever Yellow fever virus (OJ or LU)  

Mycotic bio-agents

Disease Causative Agent (Military Symbol)
Coccidiomycosis Coccidioides immitis (OC)

Biological toxins

Toxin Source of Toxin (Military Symbol)
Abrin Rosary pea (Abrus precatorius)
Botulinum toxins (A through G) Clostridium botulinum bacteria or spores, and several other Clostridial species. (X or XR)
Ricin Castor bean (Ricinus communis) (W or WA)
Saxitoxin Various marine and brackish cyanobacteria, such as AnabaenaAphanizomenonLyngbya, and Cylindrospermopsis (TZ)
Staphyloccocal enterotoxin B Staphylococcus aureus (UC or PG)
Tetrodotoxin Various marine bacteria, including Vibrio alginolyticusPseudoalteromonas tetraodonis (PP)
Trichothecenemycotoxins Various species of fungi, including FusariumTrichoderma, and Stachybotrys

Biological vectors

Vector (Military Symbol) Disease
Mosquito (Aedes aegypti) (AP) MalariaDengue feverChikungunyaYellow fever, other Arboviruses
Oriental rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopis) PlagueMurine typhus


Simulants are organisms or substances which mimic physical or biological properties of real biological agents, without being pathogenic. They are used to study the efficiency of various dissemination techniques or the risks caused by the use of biological agents in bioterrorism.[6] To simulate dispersal, attachment or the penetration depth in human or animal lungs, simulants must have particle sizes, specific weight and surface properties, similar to the simulated biological agent.

The typical size of simulants (1-5 µm) enables it to enter buildings with closed windows and doors and penetrate deep into the lungs. This bears a significant health risk, even if the biological agent is normally not pathogenic.

In popular culture

Main article: Biological warfare in popular culture

See also


  1. Jump up to:a b c "Biological Agents". United States Department of Labor: OSHA. Retrieved 2012-05-31.
  2. ^ "Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction"United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Retrieved 2013-03-03.
  3. ^ Headquarters, Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and Commandant, Marine Corps (17 July 2000), Field Manual: Treatment of Biological Warfare Casualties (Army FM 8-284/Navy NAVMED P-5042/Air Force AFMAN (I) 44-156/Marine Corps MCRP 4-11.1C), para 1-4 (pg 1-3).
  4. ^ Additional Requirements for Facilities Transferring or Receiving Select Agents, Title 42 CFR Part 72 and Appendix A; 15 April 1997 (DHHS).
  5. ^ Kenneth Alibek and S. Handelman. Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World - Told from Inside by the Man Who Ran it. 1999. Delta (2000) ISBN 0-385-33496-6.
  6. ^ "Biological Warfare (BW) Simulants – Bacillus globigii (BG)"The Night Ferry. 2010-02-05. Retrieved 2017-04-03.

External links


Gulf War syndrome - Wikipedia

Gulf War syndrome or Gulf War illness is a chronic and multi-symptomatic disorder affecting returning military veterans of the 1990–1991 Persian Gulf War 


Chemical agent or weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blister agents
Phosgene oxime (CX)
Lewisite (L)
Mustard gas (Yperite) (HD)
Nitrogen mustard (HN)
Nerve agents
Tabun (GA)
Sarin (GB)
Soman (GD)
Cyclosarin (GF)
Blood agents
Cyanogen chloride (CK)
Hydrogen cyanide (AC)
Choking agents
Chloropicrin (PS)
Phosgene (CG)
Diphosgene (DP)
Chlorine (CI)
Part of a series on
Chemical agents
Lethal agents







Incapacitating agents
Riot-control (RCAs)

Chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), though they are distinct from nuclear weaponsbiological weapons, and radiological weapons. All may be used in warfare and are known by the military acronym NBC (for nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare). Weapons of mass destruction are distinct from conventional weapons, which are primarily effective due to their explosivekinetic, or incendiarypotential. Chemical weapons can be widely dispersed in gas, liquid and solid forms, and may easily afflict others than the intended targets. Nerve gastear gas and pepper spray are three modern examples of chemical weapons.A chemical weapon (CW) is a specialized munition that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm on humans. According to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), "the term chemical weapon may also be applied to any toxic chemical or its precursorthat can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action. Munitions or other delivery devices designed to deliver chemical weapons, whether filled or unfilled, are also considered weapons themselves."[2]

Lethal unitary chemical agents and munitions are extremely volatile and they constitute a class of hazardous chemical weapons that have been stockpiled by many nations. Unitary agents are effective on their own and do not require mixing with other agents. The most dangerous of these are nerve agents (GAGBGD, and VX) and vesicant (blister) agents, which include formulations of sulfur mustard such as H, HT, and HD. They all are liquids at normal room temperature, but become gaseous when released. Widely used during the First World War, the effects of so-called mustard gasphosgene gas and others caused lung searing, blindness, death and maiming.

The Nazi Germans during World War II committed genocide (mainly against Jews but including other targeted populations) using a commercial hydrogen cyanide blood agent trade-named Zyklon B. Discharging it in large gas chambers was the preferred method to efficiently murder their victims in a continuing industrial fashion.[3] The Holocaust resulted in the largest death toll to chemical weapons in history.[4]

As of 2016, CS gas and pepper spray remain in common use for policing and riot control; while CS is considered a non-lethal weapon, pepper spray is known for its lethal potential. Under the Chemical Weapons Convention(1993), there is a legally binding, worldwide ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. Notwithstanding, large stockpiles of chemical weapons continue to exist, usually justified as a precaution against putative use by an aggressor.


  • 1Use
  • 2History
  • 3International law
    • 3.1Before the Second World War
    • 3.2Modern agreements
  • 4Countries with stockpiles
  • 5Manner and form
  • 6Disposal
    • 6.1United States
  • 7Lethality
  • 8Exposure during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn
  • 9Unitary versus binary weapons
  • 10See also
  • 11References
  • 12Further reading
  • 13External links


Main article: Chemical warfare

Chemical warfare involves using the toxic properties of chemical substancesas weapons. This type of warfare is distinct from nuclear warfare and biological warfare, which together make up NBC, the military initialism for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (warfare or weapons). None of these fall under the term conventional weapons, which are primarily effective because of their destructive potential. Chemical warfare does not depend upon explosive force to achieve an objective. It depends upon the unique properties of the chemical agent weaponized.

A British gas bomb that was used during World War I.

A lethal agent is designed to injure, incapacitate, or kill an opposing force, or deny unhindered use of a particular area of terrain. Defoliants are used to quickly kill vegetation and deny its use for cover and concealment. Chemical warfare can also be used against agriculture and livestock to promote hunger and starvation. Chemical payloads can be delivered by remote controlled container release, aircraft, or rocket. Protection against chemical weapons includes proper equipment, training, and decontamination measures.


Main article: History of chemical warfare

File:Sargent, John Singer (RA) - Gassed - Google Art Project.jpg

John Singer Sargent's iconic World War I painting: Gassed, showing blind casualties on a battlefield after a mustard gas attack

Simple chemical weapons were used sporadically throughout antiquity and into the Industrial age.[5] It was not until the 19th century that the modern conception of chemical warfare emerged, as various scientists and nations proposed the use of asphyxiating or poisonous gasses.[6] So alarmed were nations that multiple international treaties, discussed below, were passed – banning chemical weapons. This however did not prevent the extensive use of chemical weapons in World War I. The development of chlorine gas, among others, was used by both sides to try to break the stalemate of trench warfare. Though largely ineffective over the long run, it decidedly changed the nature of the war. In many cases the gasses used did not kill, but instead horribly maimed, injured, or disfigured casualties. Some 1.3 million gas casualties were recorded, which may have included up to 260,000 civilian casualties.[7][8][9]

The interwar years saw occasional use of chemical weapons, mainly to put down rebellions.[10] In Nazi Germany, much research went into developing new chemical weapons, such as potent nerve agents.[11] However, chemical weapons saw little battlefield use in World War II. Both sides were prepared to use such weapons, but the Allied powers never did, and the Axis used them only very sparingly. The reason for the lack of use by the Nazis, despite the considerable efforts that had gone into developing new varieties, might have been a lack of technical ability or fears that the Allies would retaliate with their own chemical weapons. Those fears were not unfounded: the Allies made comprehensive plans for defensive and retaliatory use of chemical weapons, and stockpiled large quantities.[12][13] Japanese forces used them more widely, though only against their Asian enemies, as they also feared that using it on Western powers would result in retaliation. Chemical weapons were frequently used against Kuomintang and Chinese communist troops.[14] However, the Nazis did extensively use poison gas against civilians in The Holocaust. Vast quantities of Zyklon B gas and carbon monoxide were used in the gas chambers of Nazi extermination camps, resulting in the overwhelming majority of some three million deaths. This remains the deadliest use of poison gas in history.[15][16][17][18]

The post-war era has seen limited, though devastating, use of chemical weapons. Some 100,000 Iranian troops were casualties of Iraqi chemical weapons during the Iran–Iraq War.[19][20][21] Iraq used mustard gas and nerve agents against its own civilians in the 1988 Halabja chemical attack.[22] The Cuban intervention in Angola saw limited use of organophosphates.[23] The Syrian government has used sarin, chlorine, and mustard gas in the Syrian civil war – generally against civilians.[24][25] Terrorist groups have also used chemical weapons, notably in the Tokyo subway sarin attack and the Matsumoto incident.[26][27] See also chemical terrorism.

International law

Before the Second World War

International law has prohibited the use of chemical weapons since 1899, under the Hague Convention: Article 23 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land adopted by the First Hague Conference "especially" prohibited employing "poison and poisoned arms".[28][29] A separate declaration stated that in any war between signatory powers, the parties would abstain from using projectiles "the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases".[30]

The Washington Naval Treaty, signed February 6, 1922, also known as the Five-Power Treaty, aimed at banning chemical warfare but did not succeed because France rejected it. The subsequent failure to include chemical warfare has contributed to the resultant increase in stockpiles.[31]

The Geneva Protocol, officially known as the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, is an International treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva June 17, 1925, and entered into force on February 8, 1928. 133 nations are listed as state parties[32] to the treaty. Ukraine is the newest signatory; acceding August 7, 2003.[33]

This treaty states that chemical and biological weapons are "justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world". And while the treaty prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons, it does not address the production, storage, or transfer of these weapons. Treaties that followed the Geneva Protocol did address those omissions and have been enacted.

Modern agreements

The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is the most recent arms control agreement with the force of International law. Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. That agreement outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in The Hague.[34]

The OPCW administers the terms of the CWC to 192 signatories, which represents 98% of the global population. As of June 2016, 66,368 of 72,525 metric tonnes, (92% of chemical weapon stockpiles), have been verified as destroyed.[35][36]The OPCW has conducted 6,327 inspections at 235 chemical weapon-related sites and 2,255 industrial sites. These inspections have affected the sovereign territory of 86 States Parties since April 1997. Worldwide, 4,732 industrial facilities are subject to inspection under provisions of the CWC.[36]

Countries with stockpiles

See Chemical weapon proliferation.

Manner and form

Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System prior to demolition.

Swedish Army soldier wearing a chemical agent protective suit (C-vätskeskydd) and protection mask(skyddsmask 90).

There are three basic configurations in which these agents are stored. The first are self-contained munitions like projectiles, cartridges, mines, and rockets; these can contain propellant and/or explosive components. The next form are aircraft-delivered munitions. This form never has an explosive component.[37] Together they comprise the two forms that have been weaponized and are ready for their intended use. The U.S. stockpile consisted of 39% of these weapon ready munitions. The final of the three forms are raw agent housed in one-ton containers. The remaining 61%[37] of the stockpile was in this form.[38] Whereas these chemicals exist in liquid form at normal room temperature,[37][39] the sulfur mustards H, and HD freeze in temperatures below 55 °F (12.8 °C). Mixing lewisite with distilled mustard lowers the freezing point to −13 °F (−25.0 °C).[40]

Higher temperatures are a bigger concern because the possibility of an explosion increases as the temperatures rise. A fire at one of these facilities would endanger the surrounding community as well as the personnel at the installations.[41] Perhaps more so for the community having much less access to protective equipment and specialized training.[42] The Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted a study to assess capabilities and costs for protecting civilian populations during related emergencies,[43] and the effectiveness of expedient, in-place shelters.[44]


Main article: Destruction of chemical weapons

Stockpile/disposal site locations for the United States' chemical weapons and the sites operating status as of August 28, 2008.

United States

The stockpiles, which have been maintained for more than 50 years,[31] are now considered obsolete.[45] Public Law 99-145, contains section 1412, which directs the Department of Defense (DOD) to dispose of the stockpiles. This directive fell upon the DOD with joint cooperation from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).[37] The Congressional directive has resulted in the present Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program.

Historically, chemical munitions have been disposed of by land burial, open burning, and ocean dumping (referred to as Operation CHASE).[46] However, in 1969, the National Research Council (NRC) recommended that ocean dumping be discontinued. The Army then began a study of disposal technologies, including the assessment of incineration as well as chemical neutralization methods. In 1982, that study culminated in the selection of incineration technology, which is now incorporated into what is known as the baseline system. Construction of the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS) began in 1985.

This was to be a full-scale prototype facility using the baseline system. The prototype was a success but there were still many concerns about CONUS operations. To address growing public concern over incineration, Congress, in 1992, directed the Army to evaluate alternative disposal approaches that might be "significantly safer", more cost effective, and which could be completed within the established time frame. The Army was directed to report to Congress on potential alternative technologies by the end of 1993, and to include in that report: "any recommendations that the National Academy of Sciences makes ..."[38] In June 2007, the disposal program achieved the milestone of reaching 45% destruction of the chemical weapon stockpile.[47] The Chemical Materials Agency (CMA) releases regular updates to the public regarding the status of the disposal program.[48] By October 2010, the program had reached 80% destruction status.[49]


Chemical weapons are said to "make deliberate use of the toxic properties of chemical substances to inflict death".[50] At the start of World War II it was widely reported in newspapers that "entire regions of Europe" would be turned into "lifeless wastelands".[51] However, chemical weapons were not used to the extent predicted by the press.

An unintended chemical weapon release occurred at the port of Bari. A German attack on the evening of December 2, 1943, damaged U.S. vessels in the harbour and the resultant release from their hulls of mustard gas inflicted a total of 628 casualties.[52][53][54]

An Australian observer who has moved into a gas-affected target area to record results, examines an un-exploded shell.

The U.S. Government was highly criticized for exposing American service members to chemical agents while testing the effects of exposure. These tests were often performed without the consent or prior knowledge of the soldiers affected.[55] Australian service personnel were also exposed as a result of the "Brook Island trials"[56] carried out by the British Government to determine the likely consequences of chemical warfare in tropical conditions; little was known of such possibilities at that time.

Some chemical agents are designed to produce mind-altering changes; rendering the victim unable to perform their assigned mission. These are classified as incapacitating agents, and lethality is not a factor of their effectiveness.[57]

Exposure during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn

During Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn, service members who demolished or handled older explosive ordnance may have been exposed to blister agents (mustard agent) or nerve agents (sarin).[58] According to The New York Times, "In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."[59] Among these, over 2,400 nerve-agent rockets were found in summer 2006 at Camp Taji, a former Republican Guard compound. "These weapons were not part of an active arsenal"; "they were remnants from an Iraqi program in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war".[59]

The Department of Defense (DOD) wants to identify those who experienced symptoms following exposure to chemical warfare agent. The likelihood of long-term effects from a single exposure is related to the severity of the exposure. The severity of exposure is estimated from the onset of signs and symptoms coupled with how long it took for them to develop. DOD is interested in their symptoms and their current status. DOD wants to be sure that the exposure is documented in their medical record, that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is informed, and that they understand their future health risks. DOD can provide them with information regarding their exposure to share with their health care provider, and recommend follow-up if needed. While DOD has identified some individuals, they are conducting medical record screenings on units, and reviewing Post Deployment Health Assessment and Reassessment forms to identify other exposed individuals. Because these methods have limitations, individuals are encouraged to self-identify by using the DOD Hotline: 800-497-6261.[citation needed]

Unitary versus binary weapons

Further information: Binary chemical weapon

Binary munitions contain two, unmixed and isolated chemicals that do not react to produce lethal effects until mixed. This usually happens just prior to battlefield use. In contrast, unitary weapons are lethal chemical munitions that produce a toxic result in their existing state.[60] The majority of the chemical weapon stockpile is unitary and most of it is stored in one-ton bulk containers.[61][62]

See also


  1. ^ "Types of Chemical Weapons" (PDF). www.fas.org. Federation of American Scientists. Archived from the original (PDF)on March 3, 2016. Retrieved June 27, 2016.
  2. ^ "Brief Description of Chemical Weapons"Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Retrieved October 21, 2014.
  3. ^ Longerich, Peter (2010). Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280436-5.
  4. ^ From Cooperation to Complicity: Degussa in the Third Reich, Peter Hayes, 2004, pp 2, 272, ISBN 0-521-78227-9
  5. ^ Samir S. Patel, “Early Chemical Warfare – Dura-Europos, Syria,” Archaeology, Vol. 63, No. 1, January/February 2010, http://www.archaeology.org/1001/topten/syria.html (accessed October 3, 2014)
  6. ^ Eric Croddy (2002). Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Comprehensive Survey for the Concerned Citizen. Springer. p. 131. ISBN 9780387950761.
  7. ^ D. Hank Ellison (August 24, 2007). Handbook of Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents, Second EditionCRC Press. pp. 567–570. ISBN 978-0-8493-1434-6.
  8. ^ Max Boot (August 16, 2007). War Made New: Weapons, Warriors, and the Making of the Modern World. Gotham. pp. 245–250. ISBN 978-1-5924-0315-8.
  9. ^ Gross, Daniel A. (Spring 2015). "Chemical Warfare: From the European Battlefield to the American Laboratory"Distillations1 (1): 16–23. Retrieved March 20, 2018.
  10. ^ "Chemical Weapons" in Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia, 2d ed. (eds. David H. Shinn & Thomas P. Ofcansky: Scarecrow Press, 2013).
  11. ^ Corum, James S., The Roots of Blitzkrieg, University Press of Kansas, USA, 1992, pp.106-107.
  12. ^ "Paxman and Harris", p132-35.
  13. ^ Callum Borchers, Sean Spicer takes his questionable claims to a new level in Hitler-Assad comparisonThe Washington Post (April 11, 2017).
  14. ^ Yuki Tanaka, Poison Gas, the Story Japan Would Like to Forget, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October 1988, p. 16-17
  15. ^ "Nazi Camps"Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved April 19, 2020.
  16. ^ Schwartz, Terese Pencak. "The Holocaust: Non-Jewish Victims". Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved April 19, 2020.
  17. ^ Patrick Coffey, American Arsenal: A Century of Weapon Technology and Strategy (Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 152-54.
  18. ^ James J. Wirtz, "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Contemporary Security Studies (4th ed.), ed. Alan Collins, Contemporary Security Studies (Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 302.
  19. ^ Fassihi, Farnaz (October 27, 2002), "In Iran, grim reminders of Saddam's arsenal"New Jersey Star Ledger
  20. ^ Paul Hughes (January 21, 2003), "It's like a knife stabbing into me"The Star (South Africa)
  21. ^ Sciolino, Elaine (February 13, 2003), "Iraq Chemical Arms Condemned, but West Once Looked the Other Way"The New York Times, archived from the original on May 27, 2013
  22. ^ On this day: 1988: Thousands die in Halabja gas attack, BBC News (March 16, 1988).
  23. ^ Tokarev, Andrei; Shubin, Gennady, eds. (2011). Bush War: The Road to Cuito Cuanavale: Soviet Soldiers' Accounts of the Angolan War. Auckland Park: Jacana Media (Pty) Ltd. pp. 128–130. ISBN 978-1-4314-0185-7.
  24. ^ "CDC | Facts About Sarin"www.bt.cdc.gov. Retrieved October 7, 2015.
  25. ^ Syria Used Chlorine in Bombs Against Civilians, Report SaysThe New York Times, Rick Gladstone, August 24, 2016 retrieved August 25, 2016.
  26. ^ "Japan executes sarin gas attack cult leader Shoko Asahara and six members"The GuardianArchived from the original on June 22, 2019. Retrieved July 18, 2019.
  27. ^ Seto, Yasuo. "The Sarin Gas Attack in Japan and the Related Forensic Investigation." The Sarin Gas Attack in Japan and the Related Forensic Investigation. Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, June 1, 2001. Web. February 24, 2017.
  28. ^ Article 23. wikisource.org. Retrieved June 27, 2016.
  29. ^ "Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); Article 23"www.yale.edu. July 29, 1899. Retrieved September 14, 2013.
  30. ^ "Laws of War: Declaration on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases"www.yale.edu. July 29, 1899. Retrieved September 14, 2013.
  31. Jump up to:a b Shrivastav, Sanjeev Kumar (January 1, 2010). "United States of America: Chemical Weapons Profile"www.idsa.in. Retrieved September 14, 2013.
  32. ^ "Geneva Protocol reservations: Project on Chemical and Biological Warfare"www.sipri.org. Archived from the original on September 6, 2013. Retrieved September 14, 2013.
  33. ^ "High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Protocol"www.sipri.org. Archived from the original on September 6, 2013. Retrieved September 14, 2013.
  34. ^ "Status as at: 07-11-2010 01:48:46 EDT, Chapter XXVI, Disarmament"www.un.org. Retrieved September 14, 2013.
  35. ^ "Demilitarisation"www.opcw.org. Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Retrieved March 29, 2014.
  36. Jump up to:a b "Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (home page)"www.opcw.org. Retrieved June 27, 2016.
  37. Jump up to:a b c d "Public Law 99-145 Attachment E" (PDF).
  38. Jump up to:a b "Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Volume 3: Appendices A-S – Storming Media". Stormingmedia.us. Archived from the original on September 7, 2013. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
  39. ^ "Record Version Written Statement by Carmen J. Spencer Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army" (PDF). www.chsdemocrats.house.govhouse.gov. June 15, 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 11, 2013. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
  40. ^ "FM 3–9 (field manual)" (PDF). Retrieved August 10, 2010.
  41. ^ Rogers, G. O.; Watson, A. P.; Sorensen, J. H.; Sharp, R. D.; Carnes, S. A. (April 1, 1990). "Evauluating Protective Actions for Chemical Agent Emergencies" (PDF). www.emc.ed.ornl.gov. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 11, 2013. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
  42. ^ "Methods for Assessing and Reducing Injury from Chemical Accidents" (PDF). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  43. ^ "Technical Options for Protecting Civilians from Toxic Vapors and Gases" (PDF). Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 13, 2010. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
  44. ^ "Effectiveness of expedient sheltering in place in a residents" (PDF). Journal of Hazardous Materials, Elsiver.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 11, 2013. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
  45. ^ John Pike. "Chemical Weapons". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
  46. ^ John Pike. "Operation CHASE (for "Cut Holes and Sink 'Em")". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
  47. ^ "45 Percent CWC Milestone". U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency. Archived from the original on June 8, 2011. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
  48. ^ "Agent Destruction Status". United States Army Chemical Materials Agency. Archived from the original on June 24, 2010. Retrieved June 16, 2010.
  49. ^ "CMA Reaches 80% Chemical Weapons Destruction Mark". Cma.army.mil. Archived from the original on November 23, 2010. Retrieved November 7, 2010.
  50. ^ "TextHandbook-EforS.fm" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 3, 2007. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
  51. ^ "[2.0] A History of Chemical Warfare (2)". Vectorsite.net. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
  52. ^ "Mustard Disaster at Bari"www.mcm.fhpr.osd.mil. Archived from the original on November 11, 2013. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
  53. ^ "Naval Armed Guard: at Bari, Italy". History.navy.mil. Archived from the original on April 9, 2010. Retrieved August 9,2010.
  54. ^ "Text of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention".
  55. ^ "Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century. United States Senate December 8, 1994". Gulfweb.org. Archived from the original on August 13, 2006. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
  56. ^ "Brook Island Trials of Mustard Gas during WW2". Home.st.net.au. Retrieved September 15, 2010.
  57. ^ "007 Incapacitating Agents". Brooksidepress.org. Archived from the original on June 16, 2010. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
  58. ^ "Chemical Warfare Agents". U.S. Army Public Health Command. Retrieved July 10, 2015.
  59. Jump up to:a b C. J. Chivers. The Secret Casualties of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons. The New York Times. October 14, 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?nlid=64847459&_r=0
  60. ^ Alternative technologies for the destruction of chemicam agents and munitions. National Research Council (U.S.). 1993. ISBN 9780309049467.
  61. ^ "Beyond the Chemical Weapons Stockpile: The Challenge of Non-Stockpile Materiel". Armscontrol.org. Retrieved August 10, 2010.
  62. ^ Institute of Medicine; Committee on the Survey of the Health Effects of Mustard Gas and Lewisite (1993). Veterans at Risk: The Health Effects of Mustard Gas and Lewisite. National Academies Press. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-309-04832-3.

Further reading

  • Glenn Cross, Dirty War: Rhodesia and Chemical Biological Warfare, 1975–1980, Helion & Company, 2017

External links


McDonalds in China was afraid of SARS-CoV-2 as a racially targeting bio-weapon

McDonald's apologizes after restaurant in China bans black people

A sign said that “black people are not allowed to enter” the restaurant in Guangzhou.

Image: McDonald's A McDonald's restaurant in suburb of Tianjin on May 7, 2018. Zhang Peng / LightRocket via Getty Images file

By Wilson Wong - 17. April 2020

McDonald’s came under fire this week after one of its branches in China displayed a sign saying that “black people are not allowed to enter.”

In a widely circulated video on Twitter, the sign was put up at a restaurant in Guangzhou, in China’s southern Guangdong province.

McDonald’s said in a statement to NBC News that the sign is “not representative of our inclusive values” and was removed.

The restaurant has since been temporarily shut down to “further educate managers and employees on our values, which includes serving all members of the communities in which we operate,” McDonald’s said.

Racial tensions between Africans and locals in Guangzhou have escalated since Chinese officials recently warned about the rising number of imported coronavirus cases.

Despite many reporting having had no recent travel history or no known contact with COVID-19 patients, hundreds of Africans in Guangzhou have been forced to quarantine for 14 days, evicted from their homes, and denied services at restaurants and hotels, local Africans told CNN.

Guangzhou is an industrial city that hosts one of the largest African communities in China and serves as an industrial hub for African traders who mainly hold short-term business visas, traveling to China several times a year.

African nations and the U.S. have decried the racist treatment of Africans in the city, The Associated Press reported.

In an April 11 statement titled “Discrimination Against African-Americans in Guangzhou,” the U.S. Consulate General advised African Americans “to avoid the Guangzhou metropolitan area until further notice.”

The chair of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat, told AP that he had summoned the Chinese ambassador to the union, Liu Yuxi, to express “extreme concern” over the reports of discrimination.

On April 13, the Chinese Embassy in Zimbabwe released a statementon Twitter, saying that Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Faki had a phone call addressing the racist treatment of Africans in China.

Wang was committed “to protecting the health and safety of all Chinese and foreign nationals in China and treating them alike,” the statement said. “China is against any differential treatment targeting any specific group of people.”