A Designed Bioweapon?

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Why Isn’t the H1N1 Pandemic Flu Being Investigated as a Designed Bioweapon?

by Bill Sardi

Recently by Bill Sardi: Flu Season Has Peaked; Vaccination Would Only Reduce Number of Infected Americans By 6 Percent; Young Children Would Receive NoBenefit

Strange as it may seem, in an era of heightened concern about biological terrorism, there appears to be little or no talk about the triple-reassortant H1N1 pandemic flu virus as a laboratory-designed bioweapon.

Certainly, this is not out of the question technologically. It is now entirely possible for scientists to artificially re-create an infectious agent from scratch. Researchers have demonstrated that a polio virus can be reduced to a chemical, C332,652H492,388N98,245O131,196-P7501S2340, and assembled by following its written genetic code. (Viruses are not live organisms, they are sequences of genes that must rely upon entry into a host cell nucleus to utilize the cell’s genetic mechanisms for reproduction.) When a synthetically-created polio virus was introduced into the spinal cords of mice it created the same paralysis seen in polio.1

The synthesis of flu viruses became more than a possibility in 1999 when researchers demonstrated it was possible to overcome the previously insurmountable problem of arranging eight segments of RNA. This was accomplished by generation of RNA using an enzyme, RNA polymerase, essentially creating a cloned flu virus.2

Fear spreads faster than the flu

Certainly imagined rather than factually-based fear is at the core of concern over this H1N1 pandemic flu outbreak. Tuberculosis, another infectious disease, globally kills nearly 2 million every year, compared to 250,000—500,000 from the flu, but a $9 billion effort to eradicate it is not mounted against TB as has occurred with the 2009 "swine flu."

The late—flu season introduction of the pandemic, starting in Mexico in March of 2009, creates a similar frightening scenario to the 1918 Spanish flu outbreak that killed millions worldwide. If an engineered virus, its late-season introduction could be evidence of an intentional effort to panic human populations.

If designed, it was intended to spread, not kill. It lacks the PB1-F2 marker for pathogenicity (tissue damage) seen in the dreaded but poorly transmitted H5N1 bird flu virus that drew concern in 2003.3 Yet, in vulnerable individuals, those with pre-existing disease or smokers or pregnant females, there is a greater (though still small) risk of death.

Wishy-washy origins

Researchers attempt to explain that this unique flu virus "was derived from several viruses circulating in swine, and that initial transmission to humans occurred several months before recognition of the outbreak." Without evidence in hand, the world community of virologists concluded that this virus "emerged from a triple reassortant virus circulating in North American swine." Yet no mass culling of herds of swine was called for.6

The swine origin of this flu is nonsense since no swine herds exhibited this virus till detection months following the initial flu outbreak in Mexico, suggesting it was transmitted from humans to pigs, not the other way around. Using pigs as a cover for the true origin of the disease also suggests a broad cover-up within the community of microbiologists and public health authorities.

For factual documentation, the first detection by the US Department of Agriculture of H1N1 pandemic influenza in pigs in the US occurred between August 26 and September 1 at the Minnesota State Fair, almost 6 months after the first case in Mexico.4

However, this fact was not revealed till months later, claimed to be an effort to protect US pig farmers when their business had already been destroyed by association of this flu virus with flu strains commonly found in swine herds.5

Researchers go on to say, in a confusing and inexplicable fashion, that "a phylogenetic estimate of the gaps in genetic surveillance indicates a long period of unsampled ancestry before the swine-flu outbreak, suggesting that the reassortment of swine lineages may have occurred years before emergence in humans, and that the multiple genetic ancestry of this swine flu is not indicative of an artificial origin."6

Here is intentional wording to dismiss any thought of an engineered virus. Yet the authors of this report are suggesting the many flu-monitoring stations across the globe completely missed detection of this virus as it mutated and re-assorted into its current form. Yet there has been no call to check for flaws in classifying viral strains which would have obviously occurred.

These researchers go on to say, that without samples of its ancestors, the immediate origin of this flu strain is difficult to determine. The closest relatives to this flu strain existed between 9.2 and 17.2 years ago, "depending upon the genetic segment" analyzed. Investigators claim it must have been circulating in pigs "for several years" before emergence in humans.6

Its Asian-origin flu strain segments lead researchers to blame the movement of pigs between Eurasia and North America for its unique viral re-assortment. Yet shipment of swine herds is one way, from North America to Asia, and there are quarantine periods so that new arrivals don’t infect an existing herd. Influenza lasts only a few days and quarantine methods would eliminate any transfer to another herd. Unlike humans, pigs produce their own vitamin C and swine herd flu outbreaks are typically mild and not mortal.

Warning of influenza as a bioweapon

In 2003 researchers at the Center for Biosecurity and Public Health, University of Texas—Houston Health Center, Houston, Texas, warned that influenza could be made into a bioweapon to produce disease and death of major proportion. Unlike other biological threats like anthrax, influenza only requires 3 to 6 airborne viral particles, 27,000 times fewer viral particles than obtained by direct contact (hands) to produce infection. In 1—4 days, its incubation period, it can start replicating and producing symptoms of diarrhea, vomiting and coughing serious enough for hospitalization and use of a respirator. Its victims often succumb to a sudden mortal heart attack, which does not directly end up on statistical health summaries as flu-related death.7

Once a flu pandemic has begun it is difficult to halt because immunization after exposure to the flu is not protective, and anti-flu drugs (Tamiflu, Relenza) must be administered before symptoms develop or within the first 48 hours after their appearance. Early on, flu symptoms may appear similar to other biological threats like anthrax, so it is difficult to ascertain that a human population is under an intentional biological attack.8

Flu viruses evolve to protect humanity?

Jeffery K. Taubenberger, M.D., Ph.D. Senior Investigator in National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases, and Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., Director of that Institute, say theH1N1 pandemic flu is afourth-generation descendantof the 1918 virus.

This virus caused an explosiveand historic pandemic, during which humans also transmittedthe virus to pigs, they concede. Taubenberger and Fauci take evolutionary theory to the height of its absurdity by stating:

"… successive pandemics and pandemic-likeevents generally appear to be decreasing in severity over time.This diminution … may reflect viral evolutionaryu2018choices’ that favor optimal transmissibility with minimal pathogenicity — a virus that kills its hosts or sends them to bed isnot optimally transmissible."

Huh? We’ve heard of "survival of the fittest," and "natural selection" (where heritable traits make it more likely an organism will survive and successfully reproduce itself), but here we have a new and novel definition of evolution — the flu virus genome is selecting against its own survival in preference to survival of humans!8

How a tailored flu virus would be produced

In 2003 Robert M. Krug, writing in the journal Antiviral Research, wrote a landmark report entitled "The potential use of influenza virus as an agent for bioterrorism." Krug said:

"If such a lethal human influenza A virus does not emerge in nature, it is likely that it can be generated in the laboratory, utilizing the recently developed reverse genetic system, whereby influenza viruses can be generated by transfection (a process of introducing nucleic acids into cells) of multiple DNAs."15

This can be accomplished by transiently opening pores or holes in the cell membrane to allow entrance of viral particles. In fact, the deadly H5N1 bird flu virus (kills 6 in 10 infected humans) has already been generated in at least one laboratory at the University of Wisconsin using this reverse genetic system.9

This topic was covered in my LRC article entitled "The Deadliest Flu Virus In The World."10

Krug writes:

"There is every reason to believe that the same recombinant DNA techniques can be used to render this H5N1 virus transmissible from humans to humans. Furthermore, it should be possible to introduce mutations into such a recombinant virus so that it is resistant to currently available influenza virus antivirals (M2 inhibitors: amantadine and rimantadine; and NA inhibitors: zanamivir and oseltamivir-Tamiflu and Relenza), and so that it is unlike…. recently circulating human viruses. In fact, several viruses (at one time) … could be generated. The human population would lack immunological protection against such viruses, existing antiviral drugs would not afford any protection, and these viruses could be spread simply by release of an aerosol spray in several crowded areas."15

In this instance, if the current H1N1 pandemic flu virus was engineered, it was designed to be vulnerable to Tamiflu and Relenza, but not amantadine and rimantadine. With the current delay in delivery of the vaccine, one wonders if this whole pandemic hasn’t been engineered to deplete aging stocks of Tamiflu that nations have been piling up in anticipation of "the big one" — the supposed long-overdue "great flu pandemic."

The question is, could there be some villainous bioterrorist in some foreign country who has the capability of covertly starting a flu virus in a remote village in Mexico, and only infect one child there, and then see it spread around the world? If so, this flu pandemic actually petered out by July of 2009, as CBS News uncovered, but re-emerged in the following months as the dominant strain of flu virus in circulation.11

Pandemic flu strains predominates

Was this pandemic strain of the flu re-introduced or re-engineered at that time, to make it more prevalent?

The current strain of the flu in circulation as of the first week in November 2009 is 99% H1N1 pandemic strain. The seasonal flu strains have vanished. There is no need to undergo vaccination for seasonal flu. Health authorities knew some time ago that the H1N1 pandemic flu strain overwhelms seasonal flu strains. The exact date of that discovery is unclear because we only have the date of publication of that discovery. The first evidence for this was produced some time earlier.12

Whether a biological terrorist re-introduced the H1N1 strain into North American human populations after it was fizzling out in July is certainly speculation, but is a question that needs asking.

Laboratory origin: no amateur bioterrorists

Krug goes on to say:

"It can be argued that most terrorists would not have the knowledge, facilities and ingenuity to carry out these recombinant DNA experiments. This is probably the case at the present time, but the situation can be expected to change in the future, perhaps after as little as 5—10 years."15

Currently there is no revealed intelligence that there is a nefarious bioterrorist at large developing pandemic flu viruses. If the current pandemic flu strain in circulation was designed in a laboratory, it would likely be a university or military lab, just as the origin of anthrax was traced back to the Army lab at Fort Detrick in Maryland.13

We should also not forget that the news media repeatedly attempted to distract the public as to the real origins of the anthrax, falsely suggesting the bentonite additive found in the anthrax samples, spread in the ventilation ducts at offices of US Congressmen in Washington DC, originated in Iraq, the only country known to use that additive. A false connection was being made between the anthrax and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by ABC chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross on October 26, 2001, shortly following the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York.14 So the public should be wary of the news media that may be complicit with other sources to create politically-correct conclusions as to the origin of the H1N1 swine flu.

Vaccination strategy is inherently flawed

Krug goes on to say:

"Vaccination will probably be of limited value against an influenza virus bioterrorist attack. Currently it takes about 6 months to prepare a vaccine against a new influenza virus strain. Perhaps reverse genetic approaches can shorten this time somewhat, but there will still be a few months between an influenza virus outbreak and the availability of a protective vaccine. In addition, the vaccine approach can be readily thwarted by bioterrorists who could spread several influenza viruses with different HA antigenic sites."15

So the current effort to control influenza, largely being centered on vaccination, is flawed and should be curtailed. Of course, that is not what is being played out in the currently unfolding vaccine drama

Only antivirals are left in defense

Krug then says: "In contrast, antiviral drugs that are directed at functions shared by all influenza A virus strains constitute the best line of defense against a bioterrorist attack. Currently the NA (neuraminidase) inhibitors (zanamivir and oseltamivir-Tamiflu and Relenza) are the only such antivirals available."15

Stockpiles of anti-viral drugs, which now proliferate across the globe, could become useless due to limited shelf life. So far, manufacturers have been testing and extending the shelf life of their anti-viral products. The World Health Organization holds 2 million treatment courses of Tamiflu and another 3 million courses are held in stock by Roche as part of their rapid response stockpile.16

Anti-virals are somewhat effective in prophylaxis of the flu, but over-use of these anti-viral drugs induces viral resistance.17

It is interesting to note that 99.6% of the 2008 seasonal flu strains were resistant to Tamiflu.18 To move Tamiflu off of shelves, the seasonal flu had to vanish, which is exactly what has occurred. This suggests aerosol flu viruses are being seeded into the population to create designed flu pandemics.

As mentioned earlier in this report, the H1N1 pandemic flu now in circulation has virtually overtaken all other flu strains, as if by design, in an apparent attempt to deplete the millions of doses of Tamiflu whose shelf life expires in 2009—2010. The US has a stockpile of over 50 million doses to clear off its shelves that outdates soon.19

Vaccine makers, government, presage the pandemic

For unexplained reasons, in 2008 the manufacturer of Tamiflu in Japan projected a 531% increase in sales in 2009, as if presaging the flu pandemic now underway.20

Has this whole flu escapade, its late-season onset, the otherwise inexplicable delays in delivery of the vaccine, been staged to dump millions of nearly-outdated Tamiflu pills on the world masses who have been whipped up into flu hysteria?

On June 27, 2008, nearly 8 months prior to the first reports of the H1N1 pandemic flu emanating out of Mexico, the maker of Tamiflu began urging companies to buy stockpiles of their product, a sales effort that was endorsed by the Department of Health & Human Services. This suggests massive collusion between the makers of anti-viral drugs and public health authorities in staging this pandemic.

On June 27, 2008, a deputy secretary for the Department of Health & Human Services is quoted as saying: “I think the (Tamiflu) program is unprecedented in that we are facing an unprecedented threat."21 Exactly which unprecedented flu threat was this government employee talking about at the time?

References:

  1. Cello J, Paul AV, Wimmer E, Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template Science 297, 1016 (2002).
  2. Neumann G, Kawaoka Y, Synthesis of influenza virus: new impetus from an old enzyme, RNA polymerase I. Virus Research. 2002 Jan 30; 82(1—2):153—8.
  3. Wang TT, Palese P, Unraveling the Mystery of Swine Influenza Virus Cell 137, June 12, 2009.
  4. Petrosillo N, Di Bella S, Drapeau CM, Grilli E, The novel influenza A (H1N1) virus pandemic: An update. Annals Thoracic Medicine. 2009 Oct;4(4):163—72.
  5. United States — USDA take 3 months to disclose swine flu. Meat Trade News Daily Nov. 4, 2009.
  6. Smith GJD, Vijakrishna D, Bahl J, et al, Origins and evolutionary genomics of the 2009 swine-origin H1N1 influenza A epidemic. Nature Volume 459, 25 June 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11885943
  7. Madjid M, Lillibridge S, Mirhaji P, Casscells W, Influenza as a bioweapon. Journal Royal Society Medicine 2003 96 (7); 345—46.
  8. Morens DM, Taubenberger JK, Fauci AS, The Persistent Legacy of the 1918 Influenza Virus. New England Journal Medicine 361(3): 225—29, July 16, 2009.
  9. Hatta M, Gao P, Halfmann P, Kawaoka Y, Molecular basis for high virulence of Hong Kong H5N1 influenza A viruses. Science 2001 Sep 7; 293(5536):1840—2.
  10. The Deadliest Flu Virus in the World: Made in USA.
  11. Atkinson S, Swine flu cases overestimated? CBS News Oct. 21, 2009.
  12. Perez, D., Sorrell, E., Angel, M., Ye, J., Hickman, D., Pena, L., Ramirez-Nieto, G., Kimble, B., & Araya, Y. August 25, 2009. Fitness of Pandemic H1N1 and Seasonal influenza A viruses during Co-infection PLoS Currents RRN1011.2.
  13. Anthrax attack bug “identical” to army strain.” New Scientist. May 9, 2002.
  14. Troubling Anthrax Additive Found, Brian Ross, Christopher Isham, Chris Vlasto and Gary Matsumoto, ABC.com, October 26, 2001
  15. Krug RM, The potential use of influenza virus as an agent for bioterrorism. Antiviral Research 57 (2003) 147—150.
  16. Roche deploys rapid response stockpile of Tamiflu Reuters Sat May 2, 2009.
  17. Eichner M, Schwehm M, Duerr HP, et al, Antiviral prophylaxis during pandemic influenza may increase drug resistance. BMC Infectious Diseases 2009; 9: 2334—39.
  18. “2008—2009 Influenza Season Week ending September 5, 2009 “CDC, Sep. 18, 2009.
  19. Stockpiled Antivirals at or Nearing Expiration. US Food & Drug Administration.
  20. Chugai Pharmaceutical, Annual Report 2008.
  21. Mary Brophy Marcus, U.S. firms can stockpile Tamiflu. USA TODAY June 27, 2008.

Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a frequent writer on health and political topics. His health writings can be found at www.naturalhealthlibrarian.com. He is the author of You Don’t Have To Be Afraid Of Cancer Anymore.

The Best of Bill Sardi

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare