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 15. January 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 09. July 2020: COVID News and The Resistance
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
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
THINK OUT OF THE BOX
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 - 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 Tribunal.
The truth must be found out and the villains stopped forever.
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).
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.
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.
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
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
- Generally inhaled, distributed through blood
- Inhibit the body's ability to use oxygen effectively
- Cause body to "suffocate" from lack of oxygen
- 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
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.
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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A biological agent (also called bio-agent, biological threat agent, biological warfare agent, biological weapon, or bioweapon) is a bacterium, virus, protozoan, parasite, or fungus that can be used purposefully as a weapon in bioterrorism or biological warfare (BW). In addition to these living or replicating pathogens, toxins 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. 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.
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. Bio-agents are, however, widely studied for both defensive and general medical purposes under various biosafety levels and within biocontainment facilities throughout the world.
- 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
- 3In popular culture
- 4See also
- 6External links
The former US biological warfare program (1943-1969) categorized its weaponized anti-personnel bio-agents as either "lethal agents" (Bacillus anthracis, Francisella tularensis, Botulinum toxin) or "incapacitating agents" (Brucella suis, Coxiella burnetii, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Staphylococcal enterotoxin B).
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. 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.
|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)|
|Disease||Causative Agent (Military Symbol)|
|Psittacosis||Chlamydophila psittaci (SI)|
|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)|
|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|
|Rift Valley fever||Rift Valley fever virus (FA)|
|Smallpox||Variola virus (ZL)|
|Yellow fever||Yellow fever virus (OJ or LU)|
|Disease||Causative Agent (Military Symbol)|
|Coccidiomycosis||Coccidioides immitis (OC)|
|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 Anabaena, Aphanizomenon, Lyngbya, and Cylindrospermopsis (TZ)|
|Staphyloccocal enterotoxin B||Staphylococcus aureus (UC or PG)|
|Tetrodotoxin||Various marine bacteria, including Vibrio alginolyticus, Pseudoalteromonas tetraodonis (PP)|
|Trichothecenemycotoxins||Various species of fungi, including Fusarium, Trichoderma, and Stachybotrys|
|Vector (Military Symbol)||Disease|
|Mosquito (Aedes aegypti) (AP)||Malaria, Dengue fever, Chikungunya, Yellow fever, other Arboviruses|
|Oriental rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopis)||Plague, Murine 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. 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.
- Bacillus globigii (historically named Bacillus subtilis in the context of bio-agent simulants) (BG, BS, or U)
- Serratia marcescens (SM or P)
- Aspergillus fumigatus mutant C-2 (AF)
- Escherichia coli (EC)
- Bacillus thuringiensis (BT)
- Erwinia herbicola (current accepted name: Pantoea agglomerans) (EH)
- Fluorescent particles such as Zinc cadmium sulfide, ZnCdS (FP)
In popular culture
Main article: Biological warfare in popular culture
- Biological hazard
- Biological contamination
- Laboratory Response Network
- Pulsed ultraviolet light
- ^ Jump up to:a b c "Biological Agents". United States Department of Labor: OSHA. Retrieved 2012-05-31.
- ^ "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.
- ^ 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).
- ^ Additional Requirements for Facilities Transferring or Receiving Select Agents, Title 42 CFR Part 72 and Appendix A; 15 April 1997 (DHHS).
- ^ 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.
- ^ "Biological Warfare (BW) Simulants – Bacillus globigii (BG)". The Night Ferry. 2010-02-05. Retrieved 2017-04-03.
- Rafał L. Górny, Biological agents, OSHwiki
- U.S. Department of Labor - Biological Agents
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Select Agents and Toxins
Chemical agent or weapon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|Mustard gas (Yperite)||(HD)|
|Part of a series on|
Chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), though they are distinct from nuclear weapons, biological 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 explosive, kinetic, or incendiarypotential. Chemical weapons can be widely dispersed in gas, liquid and solid forms, and may easily afflict others than the intended targets. Nerve gas, tear 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."
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 (GA, GB, GD, 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 gas, phosgene 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. The Holocaust resulted in the largest death toll to chemical weapons in history.
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.
- 3International law
- 3.1Before the Second World War
- 3.2Modern agreements
- 4Countries with stockpiles
- 5Manner and form
- 6.1United States
- 8Exposure during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn
- 9Unitary versus binary weapons
- 10See also
- 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
Simple chemical weapons were used sporadically throughout antiquity and into the Industrial age. 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. 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.
The interwar years saw occasional use of chemical weapons, mainly to put down rebellions. In Nazi Germany, much research went into developing new chemical weapons, such as potent nerve agents. 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. 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. 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.
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. Iraq used mustard gas and nerve agents against its own civilians in the 1988 Halabja chemical attack. The Cuban intervention in Angola saw limited use of organophosphates. The Syrian government has used sarin, chlorine, and mustard gas in the Syrian civil war – generally against civilians. Terrorist groups have also used chemical weapons, notably in the Tokyo subway sarin attack and the Matsumoto incident. See also chemical terrorism.
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". 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".
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.
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 to the treaty. Ukraine is the newest signatory; acceding August 7, 2003.
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.
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.
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.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.
Countries with stockpiles
Manner and form
Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System prior to demolition.
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. 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% of the stockpile was in this form. Whereas these chemicals exist in liquid form at normal room temperature, 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).
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. Perhaps more so for the community having much less access to protective equipment and specialized training. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted a study to assess capabilities and costs for protecting civilian populations during related emergencies, and the effectiveness of expedient, in-place shelters.
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.
The stockpiles, which have been maintained for more than 50 years, are now considered obsolete. 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). 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). 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 ..." In June 2007, the disposal program achieved the milestone of reaching 45% destruction of the chemical weapon stockpile. The Chemical Materials Agency (CMA) releases regular updates to the public regarding the status of the disposal program. By October 2010, the program had reached 80% destruction status.
Chemical weapons are said to "make deliberate use of the toxic properties of chemical substances to inflict death". At the start of World War II it was widely reported in newspapers that "entire regions of Europe" would be turned into "lifeless wastelands". 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.
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. Australian service personnel were also exposed as a result of the "Brook Island trials" 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.
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). 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." 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".
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.
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. The majority of the chemical weapon stockpile is unitary and most of it is stored in one-ton bulk containers.
- 1990 Chemical Weapons Accord
- CB military symbol
- General-purpose criterion
- List of chemical warfare agents
- Riot control
- ^ "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.
- ^ "Brief Description of Chemical Weapons". Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Retrieved October 21, 2014.
- ^ Longerich, Peter (2010). Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280436-5.
- ^ From Cooperation to Complicity: Degussa in the Third Reich, Peter Hayes, 2004, pp 2, 272, ISBN 0-521-78227-9
- ^ Samir S. Patel, “Early Chemical Warfare – Dura-Europos, Syria,” Archaeology, Vol. 63, No. 1, January/February 2010, https://www.archaeology.org/1001/topten/syria.html (accessed October 3, 2014)
- ^ Eric Croddy (2002). Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Comprehensive Survey for the Concerned Citizen. Springer. p. 131. ISBN 9780387950761.
- ^ D. Hank Ellison (August 24, 2007). Handbook of Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents, Second Edition. CRC Press. pp. 567–570. ISBN 978-0-8493-1434-6.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Gross, Daniel A. (Spring 2015). "Chemical Warfare: From the European Battlefield to the American Laboratory". Distillations. 1 (1): 16–23. Retrieved March 20, 2018.
- ^ "Chemical Weapons" in Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia, 2d ed. (eds. David H. Shinn & Thomas P. Ofcansky: Scarecrow Press, 2013).
- ^ Corum, James S., The Roots of Blitzkrieg, University Press of Kansas, USA, 1992, pp.106-107.
- ^ "Paxman and Harris", p132-35.
- ^ Callum Borchers, Sean Spicer takes his questionable claims to a new level in Hitler-Assad comparison, The Washington Post (April 11, 2017).
- ^ Yuki Tanaka, Poison Gas, the Story Japan Would Like to Forget, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October 1988, p. 16-17
- ^ "Nazi Camps". Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved April 19, 2020.
- ^ Schwartz, Terese Pencak. "The Holocaust: Non-Jewish Victims". Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved April 19, 2020.
- ^ Patrick Coffey, American Arsenal: A Century of Weapon Technology and Strategy (Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 152-54.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Fassihi, Farnaz (October 27, 2002), "In Iran, grim reminders of Saddam's arsenal", New Jersey Star Ledger
- ^ Paul Hughes (January 21, 2003), "It's like a knife stabbing into me", The Star (South Africa)
- ^ 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
- ^ On this day: 1988: Thousands die in Halabja gas attack, BBC News (March 16, 1988).
- ^ 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.
- ^ "CDC | Facts About Sarin". www.bt.cdc.gov. Retrieved October 7, 2015.
- ^ Syria Used Chlorine in Bombs Against Civilians, Report Says, The New York Times, Rick Gladstone, August 24, 2016 retrieved August 25, 2016.
- ^ "Japan executes sarin gas attack cult leader Shoko Asahara and six members". The Guardian. Archived from the original on June 22, 2019. Retrieved July 18, 2019.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Article 23. wikisource.org. Retrieved June 27, 2016.
- ^ "Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); Article 23". www.yale.edu. July 29, 1899. Retrieved September 14, 2013.
- ^ "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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ "Geneva Protocol reservations: Project on Chemical and Biological Warfare". www.sipri.org. Archived from the original on September 6, 2013. Retrieved September 14, 2013.
- ^ "High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Protocol". www.sipri.org. Archived from the original on September 6, 2013. Retrieved September 14, 2013.
- ^ "Status as at: 07-11-2010 01:48:46 EDT, Chapter XXVI, Disarmament". www.un.org. Retrieved September 14, 2013.
- ^ "Demilitarisation". www.opcw.org. Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Retrieved March 29, 2014.
- ^ Jump up to:a b "Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (home page)". www.opcw.org. Retrieved June 27, 2016.
- ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Public Law 99-145 Attachment E" (PDF).
- ^ 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.
- ^ "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.
- ^ "FM 3–9 (field manual)" (PDF). Retrieved August 10, 2010.
- ^ 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.
- ^ "Methods for Assessing and Reducing Injury from Chemical Accidents" (PDF). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
- ^ "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.
- ^ "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.
- ^ John Pike. "Chemical Weapons". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
- ^ John Pike. "Operation CHASE (for "Cut Holes and Sink 'Em")". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
- ^ "45 Percent CWC Milestone". U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency. Archived from the original on June 8, 2011. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
- ^ "Agent Destruction Status". United States Army Chemical Materials Agency. Archived from the original on June 24, 2010. Retrieved June 16, 2010.
- ^ "CMA Reaches 80% Chemical Weapons Destruction Mark". Cma.army.mil. Archived from the original on November 23, 2010. Retrieved November 7, 2010.
- ^ "TextHandbook-EforS.fm" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 3, 2007. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
- ^ "[2.0] A History of Chemical Warfare (2)". Vectorsite.net. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
- ^ "Mustard Disaster at Bari". www.mcm.fhpr.osd.mil. Archived from the original on November 11, 2013. Retrieved November 11, 2013.
- ^ "Naval Armed Guard: at Bari, Italy". History.navy.mil. Archived from the original on April 9, 2010. Retrieved August 9,2010.
- ^ "Text of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention".
- ^ "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.
- ^ "Brook Island Trials of Mustard Gas during WW2". Home.st.net.au. Retrieved September 15, 2010.
- ^ "007 Incapacitating Agents". Brooksidepress.org. Archived from the original on June 16, 2010. Retrieved August 9, 2010.
- ^ "Chemical Warfare Agents". U.S. Army Public Health Command. Retrieved July 10, 2015.
- ^ 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
- ^ Alternative technologies for the destruction of chemicam agents and munitions. National Research Council (U.S.). 1993. ISBN 9780309049467.
- ^ "Beyond the Chemical Weapons Stockpile: The Challenge of Non-Stockpile Materiel". Armscontrol.org. Retrieved August 10, 2010.
- ^ 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.
- Glenn Cross, Dirty War: Rhodesia and Chemical Biological Warfare, 1975–1980, Helion & Company, 2017
- Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Home page
- Lecture by Santiago Oñate Laborde entitled The Chemical Weapons Convention: an Overview in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
- "The Government of Canada 'Challenge' for chemical substances that are a high priority for action".
- "Chemical categories". Archived from the original on November 8, 2005.
- "Chemical Warfare Agents".
- "U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency (home page)". Archived from the original on October 15, 2004. Retrieved August 10, 2010.
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.
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
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.
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.
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:
- 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).
- 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.
- There is currently no evidence that new variants preferentially infect children.
- 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).
- 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”.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 also: Coronavirus Variants Dashboard (covariants.org)
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. | Photo: AFP
By teleSUR/SM - 12. February 2021
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.
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. Photograph: Riccardo Antimiani/EPA
By Sarah Boseley - 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.”
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.
Sarah Boseley is The Guardian Health editor, whose department is financed by the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation
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 HAVE NO CLUE AS TO THE ABSURDITY OF THEIR OWN WORK.
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 REVEALED, EXIT 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 Revealed, click 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
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)
COVID News and The Resistance
•Jul 9, 2020
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/