Jim_from_the_South
Honorable
Well, it seems as if the powers that be will not allow me to publish my book. It seems that Covid-19 cures are rejected, even if they might work and I am not trying to sell them or anything. Plus the fact that I can name the people involved, it makes it "problematic". What a world we live in. So I thought I would give you my chapter number 8 out of 18, on what I have uncovered about our Virus Labs. Enjoy.
Biohazard Labs and "Mistakes Were Made"
Before I share with you the next sections, and their extra contents from our alien communication, I believe a bit of background information will come in handy. It will help us to understand a bit more about the scientific research procedures that are in common practice today. This chapter has some complicated terms in it, with some from the medical field and others the legal field. But the more that you can glean from it, the more the revelations in later chapters will make sense. So please bear with me.
In the laboratories that conduct research and development of new and exciting virus and bacteria strains, as well as DNA modifications, there are some requirements that the Governments of the world have instituted. These are intended to protect the public from exposure to dread diseases. The various Governmental bodies decided that safety standards needed to be applied to laboratories that work with dangerous bacteria and virus concoctions. Four biosafety levels have thus been designated (1 through 4) by them.
The level assignments are based upon how dangerous the materials are that you will be handling or storing. Factors such as how easily it can infect someone, how severe the disease is, and whether and how it can be transmitted to others are important. And along with those risk factors they take into consideration the nature of the work being conducted. Based upon your "score", they assign a Biological Safety Level (BSL) that you must maintain at all times.
Higher numbers signify more dangerous materials, stricter requirements and more frequent safety inspections. And of course, a higher level also indicates more elaborate and therefore more costly safety requirements. Lower levels, such as BSL-1 and possibly BSL-2 in some circumstances, do not require inspection by outsiders, but rather are considered to be relying on "self-policing" measures. And the policing is often performed by members of the same educational entity or laboratory staff that runs the facility.
When they speak of Containment or Biocontainment, they refer to the microbiological practices, safety equipment, and facility safeguards that protect laboratory workers, the environment, and especially the general public, from exposure to infectious microorganisms and toxins that are handled and stored in the laboratory. Or at least those safeguards that do not tend to "bother" the scientists, or "hinder" their work. Because experience has taught us that even scientists and techs that work with deadly diseases get sloppy or even lazy from time to time. They are human, after all.
In the journal <i>Annals of Health Law</i> Volume 22, Issue 1, Winter 2013, there is an interesting article by Clark J. Lee, JD, Patrick P. Rose, PhD, and Earl Stoddard III, PhD. It has the descriptive title of "Enhancing Communication Between Scientists, Government Officials, and the Lay Public: Advancing Science and Protecting the Public's Welfare through BetterMulit-Stakeholder Interfacting." It's available online at: Enhancing Communication Between Scientists, Government Officials, and the Lay Public: Advancing Science and Protecting the Public's Welfare through Better Multi-Stakeholder Interfacing, and it explains the situation in layman's terms. But one paragraph in particular grabbed my attention and I believe that it deserves to be reproduced here in its entirety:
"Because most scientists believe that their research should be conducted without interference from codes, rules, regulations, or laws that might impinge their intellectual endeavors, there is often disagreement between scientists and government officials as to what truly is in the 'best interests' of the public's welfare."
I'm not attempting to bash scientists here. But I think it is important to keep in mind that some highly intelligent people such as our top scientists, seem to have a proclivity to become annoyed at strict government regulations, and to sometimes respond by either ignoring or bypassing them from time to time. Which leads me to wonder just how much of this "self-policing" is actually done.
Why should this concern us, when these "self-policing" labs are mainly the BSL-1 or BSL-2 facilities that we are speaking of; the laboratories that handle materials that are not as potentially dangerous as others? Because this same attitude and lower level of enforcement and inspections can lead to one colleague from a much more dangerous BSL-3 or BSL-4 laboratory, deciding to "share" his "amazing, life-changing, Nobel prize-worthy" latest discovery with a friend in a BSL-2 lab. Just to see if they have something that might be patented, published, or both. And the situation can then go south very, very quickly.
Most of this chapter will be concerned with BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories, as those are the ones that impact the most on our story. Let's briefly examine the differences between the two, in regard to security and safety levels. This will be helpful in the next chapter when we uncover supplemental meanings included in the message from our extraterrestrials.
BSL-3. A Level 3 lab is allowed to handle such agents as "Yellow fever, St. Louis encephalitis, West Nile Virus, and bacterial infections such as Brucellosis" among others. We are assured that the work with these agents is strictly controlled and must be registered with all appropriate government agencies. But I will be providing hard evidence below that this is not actually the case.
Something that comes to mind when we read about Biological Safety Levels in labs is the word disingenuous. This five-dollar word is something that we should perhaps keep in mind, since this method is employed in many scientific publications, and especially in those from NASA. And no, I am not picking on all of the good people at NASA, but I can provide the evidence that some of their publications employ disingenuous methods. It may be defined as the actions of someone who is not being candid or sincere, who is pretending to know less about something than he really does. What we might call a calculating person.
An easy example might be: "This town is super-safe, we've had only fifteen murders since 1947 - about the same number as you would have in many small towns in America." This might be a correct statement, but also a disingenuous one. The town actually had no murders in its first fifty years and fifteen in the past twenty-two. It's roughly equivalent to not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Here's another example of a disingenuous statement, made in respect to the materials that one is allowed to work with in a BSL-3 lab: "These are indigenous or exotic agents that may cause serious or lethal disease via aerosol transmission, i.e., simple inhalation of particles or droplets." This tells us that a laboratory scientist or worker could be exposed to something floating in the air that surrounds him or her. It continues with "The pathogenicity and communicability of these agents dictates the next level of protective procedures and barriers." So, we need to tighten up the lower level safety barriers, and just how do we do that? "Add to all the BSL 2 practices and equipment even more stringent access control and decontamination of all wastes, including lab clothing before laundering, within the lab facility." So basically, wash your hands, which we Covid-19 sufferers have heard a few times. And? "More protective primary barriers are used in BSL 3 laboratories, including solid-front wraparound gowns, scrub suits or coveralls made of materials to keep the elements out (such as Tyvek) and respirators (fancy face masks with filters) as necessary." Did you catch the disingenuous phrase that was included? Yes, it was "as necessary."
This phrase "as necessary" implies that a decision is to be made regarding whether we take this extra step of protection or we do not. Perhaps a word that would make me sleep a little better at night would be "required", as in "respirators with adequate filters are absolutely required at all times".
On the next page is an image provided by the US Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. It shows a researcher who is working with influenza virus under BSL-3 conditions. He has a respirator, and his hands are inside of a biosafety cabinet. Please examine that image and we will continue.
PUBDOM_Biosafety Level 3-Influenza_virus_research.png
What's wrong with that picture? Well, for starters, that biosafety cabinet resembles the cheap plastic shield that my Bank recently put up to protect its tellers when they handle banking transactions during the Covid pandemia. It's open at the top and bottom, and is really only a sort of shield around the middle area where the money and documents go in and out. Pathogens are, or could become, smart enough to escape to the bottom or top of this "cage", could they not? Perhaps if they received the proper training? (I jest.)
And while his exhaled breath seems to be contained within the face-shield respirator, his ears and the entire back of his head and neck are exposed. So when those pesky viruses manage to escape the cage to the top or bottom, they could land right on the back of his head. Supposedly the negative air pressure inside the chamber tends to keep the air inside and not allow the air-born particles to escape to the area where the lab tech is working outside. Unless, that is, he happens to scratch his neck. But that almost never happens in real life, right?
And by the way, this public domain image is courtesy of the US Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. In the photo description it tells us: "This 2005 photograph depicts one of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's staff microbiologists examining reconstructed 1918 Pandemic Influenza Virus contained within a calibrated vial with a supernatant culture medium." It continues with: "The 1918 virus was recreated in order to identify the characteristics that made this organism such a deadly pathogen. Research efforts such as this, enables researchers to develop new vaccines and treatments for future pandemic influenza viruses. The 1918 Spanish flu epidemic was caused by an influenza A (H1N1) virus, killing more than 500,000 people in the United States, and up to 50 million worldwide. The possible source for this was a newly emerged virus from a swine or an avian host of a mutated H1N1 virus, and their image shows one of their researchers who is working with influenza virus under BSL-3 safety conditions." Since the Spanish flu epidemic killed as many as fifty million people, and it is being worked on in a Level 3 Biolab, how much of a threat to mankind's existence are the items that they are working on in a Level 4 lab?
We've been assured by responsible government authorities and medical staff that Covid-19 can land on body surfaces and remain there for quite some time. So my fears of neck-scratching or contamination from unprotected surfaces might not be so far off after all. And this is the CDC's own image of someone working on nothing less than one of the deadliest diseases in history.
BSL-4. A Level 4 lab is required when agents are extremely dangerous and pose a high risk of life-threatening disease. Highly dangerous (kills millions of people) and a High Risk of life-threatening diseases falls in this category. I repeated that for emphasis, and we will soon understand why I did. Examples of agents that require the safety standards of a BSL-4 laboratory are the Ebola virus, the Lassa virus, and any agent with unknown risks of pathogenicity and transmission.
Consider a new virus, one that has no cure at present, and one for which we don't really have "patient zero" to examine. One without any real knowledge of the long-term effects, nor what secondary effects might accompany it or become triggered by this virus. Would that meet those standards given above, for a BSL-4? And if it has already taken more than a million lives, wouldn't that be considered at least somewhat "High Risk" and "life-threatening"?
So you can probably guess which biohazard level a laboratory is required to maintain in order to handle or work on the Covid-19 type viruses, and any new versions that mutate from that original strain, right? No, they only require BSL-3. Yes, the one from the previous image with the researcher's neck open to the air, ready for scratching. But that shouldn't really surprise us, since we learned from the first image above that the 1918 Flu virus that killed fifty million people is also being worked on in a BSL-3 lab. Should we be at all concerned? Or petrified?
And speaking of "any agent with unknown risks of pathogenicity and transmission" , which requires a BSL-4 laboratory, or one with the absolute best in security and safety, wouldn't that include any newly discovered swine, or bird flu virus, at least until they are studied further? No, not that is, until it makes the list of the CDC or other Governmental bodies and is declared as high risk and life-threatening (to either humans or animals or both). When it hits their list, the requirements are upgraded. First you hit the Government's list, and then you obtain a protection level. Sort of like shutting the barn door after all of the .... well, you know what I mean. Having to obey some human imposed regulations prior to their being accepted as factual reminds us of the human-imposed speed of light limitations that the aliens seem to pay no attention to.
Of course, responsible scientists are allowed to declare, in any emergency outbreak, that a new virus discovery seems to meet those requirements for higher safety - if they want. When they are sure, as in when they have studied it, handled it, and passed samples of it around to fellow researchers, and carefully checked all of the existing publications, etc. Something like, "hey guys, we figured it out, don't touch that that new virus anymore!" Because we don't want them to be like the boy that cried wolf, do we?
Yes, please be that boy, for our sakes.
BSL- 4 facilities provide the maximum in protection and containment. To the BSL-3 practices, we add requirements for complete clothing change before entry, a shower on exit and decontamination of all materials prior to leaving the facility. Higher safety and security standards are applied in a BSL-4, so that "any agent with unknown risks of pathogenicity and transmission" do not go on to infect the general public, let alone the poor lab technicians. In fact all of these unknown types are considered to require BSL-4, at least according to the Centers for Disease Control. And yet newly discovered and not yet fully understood swine and bird flu viruses, whose patient zero or first location of contagion remains undiscovered, are studied in BSL-3 labs and not BSL-4. Why, other than for the convenience of the laboratory owners, is that allowed? Well, so the greatest numbers of scientists and pharmaceutical companies have the potential to find a patentable and profitable solution. And they are getting paid while they search. And also, so that we can more quickly come up with a cure for Covid-19, and save lives! And then attain fame and fortune for its discovery.
On the next page is an image from a BSL-4 lab. Notice that both members of the scientific team are both protected and protecting us as well, from any contamination, by wearing positive pressure suits, with their own filtered air supply.
PUBDOM_BIO4_NIAID_Integrated_Research_Facility_-_Positive_Pressure_Personnel_Suit.png
Which level of protection should we be using when handling the Corona Virus or any other new, unknown killers, in your opinion? Yes, the BSL-4 labs cost quite a bit more to operate. So the Military will need to use more of its budget in their search for the next "protection" from "possible bio weapons" that they study, solely in the interests of "defense". And the pharmaceutical companies will have to explain to their stockholders just why their research and development expenses increased this quarter. But at least they will still have shareholders left alive to explain things to.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention inspect BSL-3 facilities and review commissioning documentation, but no single agency has oversight over all BSL-3 facilities. Just how many BSL-3 facilities are there in the United States? We really have no idea. And that's the scary truth.
In 2005, two separate surveys were carried out by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to determine just how many operational BSL-3 laboratories there were in the United States. A similar survey by the American Society for Microbiology reported 292 facilities, but in a report for Congress by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services they reported "more than 600".
In 2007, a report to the US Government Accountability Office by K. Rhodes, titled "High-Containment Biosafety Laboratories: Preliminary Observations on the Oversight of the Proliferation of BSL-3 and BSL-4 Laboratories in the United States", indicates that a check of the registered BSL-3 laboratories with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the US Department of Agriculture (APHIS-USDA) for select agent research, revealed 1,345 laboratories. Wow, it went from a bunch, to more than 600 and now more than 1,345. Notice that the word "select agent research" is used, which means that they are only counting the laboratories that work with certain specified biological hazards, and thus this is not an indication of the entire number of BSL-3 laboratories. (Yes, fellow readers, the disingenuous word in that paragraph was "select".)
This might be confusing, so I'll break it down for all of us. There is a list of what they consider "select agents". If you work on something that is on that list, you must be registered. And SARS-associated Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) is one of those listed agents. My point is that until it makes the list, that is until a scientist has studied its characteristics, it is not published on the "select agents" list, and thus you don't have to register with the CDC the location of your laboratory, nor the work you do with it. Thus the truly "unknown" number of BSL-3 laboratories.
For some time, SARS has been on the select agent list, but Covid-19, the 2019 strain, had not yet been placed on the list. It's sort of like dipping your hand into a barrel without knowing just what is inside it. Once someone learns what is inside, they can place a label on it and warn people with "watch out, this is some deadly stuff!" but until then, it's just another barrel. And of course, a scientist researcher wouldn't want to disclose anything about those contents until they know if it's worth publishing, or might be good for gaining some grant money, or perhaps has the potential to be patented. So in the meantime, it's just you and the barrel, and all of your technicians, and fellow scientists, and the pharmaceutical representative that came to look at it, and all of their families, etc.
And so, how many of these BSL-3 laboratories are there in the US? The truth is that the number of BSL-3 facilities in the US is currently unknown because federal registration is required only if select agent (very dangerous pathogens listed in the National SA Registry) or NIH-funded recombinant DNA (rDNA) work is conducted. By the way, this last comment is straight from the The National Institutes of Health, a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website. So if <i>they</i> don't really know how many there are, and the CDC and Homeland Security are also ignorant of the correct numbers, as we saw above, then officially "nobody knows".
So you could easily be experimenting on recombinant DNA (rDNA) or on very dangerous pathogens, as long as they have not yet made the National Select Agents Registry list, and you happen to be self-funded. Laboratories run by Pharmaceutical companies are self-funded, for instance, as well as home or garage type labs. My understanding is that Frankenstein's lab was self-funded. Under those conditions you would never need to report where your laboratories are physically located, and they would thus not be inspected by the CDC either. That seems to be very convenient for some laboratories, I imagine. By the way, I gathered some of the above information from the web pages online at the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention.
Are things any different, regarding the disclosure of BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories in China? China has, as they stated in June of 2020, "more than 20" BSL-3 laboratories as part of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, including at least one mobile unit. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic in China, authorities in May of 2020 "unveiled a plan... that requires every province to establish at least one BSL-3 lab, and major cities to have at least one BSL-2 lab." I'm a bit confused by their stated reasons for constructing BSL-3 labs in every province in China. Perhaps they see these as possible revenue sources.
The Covid-19 virus possibly started in China, and yet they are going to construct even more laboratories that are able to handle the most dangerous materials? Wouldn't these new labs also be used to "create" something biological that makes money, and not just be a byproduct of spending those huge sums of money to "protect" the Chinese people when a dread disease next raises its head? And wouldn't having fewer BSL-3 labs also mean less potential exposure points? China tells us that they have only "more than 20" BSL-3 labs. Yes, and the 1,345 that the US has counted so far, is also a number "more than 20", and thus we see the "less than the whole truth" tactic being employed once more, this time in China. If we are naive enough to believe their figure of "more than 20" represents a number that is close to 20, then so be it. The number 5,000 is also more than 20. It seems as if the Chinese understand how to be disingenuous as well. Can we, as a human race, survive anything less than complete candor from our scientists?
While we don't know for sure the true origin or cause of the Covid-19 virus (because you have probably not yet read what the aliens tell us in the next chapter), the chances of it being related to a laboratory accident are very "slight", correct? I mean, this type of thing hasn't happened in many years, right?
On November 24, 2019, just prior to the date when the first Covid-19 case was reported, the US Centers for Disease and Control (CDC), entered the Army's premier biological laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland, for an inspection of their safety procedures. Yes, this was a surprise inspection. This resulted in a report of two breaches of containment and led to the CDC issuing a cease and desist order, halting the high-level research at that base. Both the BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratoris were closed due to noted lapses in biosafety protocals. Can we even imagine just how potentially dangerous the situation was that it required the closing of a major Military facility?
The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), was not restored to full operations for nearly eight months, while investigations were underway and remedial actions taken. We learn about their return to full capacity, allowing them to conduct work on infectious diseases, from a press release given by Senators Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen and Representatives David Trone and Jamie Raskin. No political pressure was applied to re-open those lucrative employment centers with opportunities for grants, I'm sure.
The lab itself reported that the shutdown order was due to ongoing infrastructure issues with wastewater decontamination, and the CDC declined to provide the reason for the shutdown due to national security concerns. However, TV Station WJLA-TV in Washington, D.C., available online at their Virtual Channel 7 webpage, tells us, in an article by Diana DiGangi on January 22, 2020, that CDC documents outline the violations that they uncovered, some of which they labeled as serious.
Apparently the base labs were working with "non-human primates", who had been infected with an unknown agent, the identity of which had been redacted (covered over in the infamous black ink we see so often on reports that are released via a Freedom of Information Request).
This editing of the report was reportedly done because by disclosing even the identity of the agent or the locations where the agent was undergoing research, would "endanger public health or safety".
One of the violations that the CDC noted during their inspections at Fort Detrick was that of an individual who partially entered a room, on multiple occasions, without the required respiratory protection, at a time when researchers were performing procedures on a non-human primate, secured on a table. They also observed a lab worker disposing of waste in a biohazardous waste bin without gloves on. On a side note, and strictly out of curiosity, why do they feel the need to add the words "non-human" as a prefix to the "primate" they speak of? Humans are primates after all, but generally when we speak of research on humans we simply say "human trials", right?
Another violation involved personnel who were propping open a door while removing large amounts of biohazardous waste from an adjacent room. They further noted that this second room contained people who were typically not required to wear respiratory protection. As you may recall, this is similar to my thought that perhaps a high-safety level BSL-3 or BSL-4 lab scientist or technician might contaminate a lower level BSL-2 or BSL-1 lab, by accident.
More "moderate" safety violations include some personnel not having the proper safety training, failure to maintain an accurate or current inventory for a toxin, and cracks around a conduit box, cracks in the ceiling, and in the seam above a biological safety cabinet, in one laboratory building. You would think that the Department of Defense could afford to patch those cracks. But these labs are back in business as of this writing.
According to Aaron Davis, Michael E. Ruane and Nelson Hernandez, in their article "Lab and Community Make For Uneasy Neighbors", in the August 2, 2008 edition of the Washington Post, the Fort Detrick facility acquired the nickname "Fort Doom" while offensive biological warfare research was undertaken there. (5,000 bombs containing anthrax spores were produced at the base during World War II).
Even more interesting, we learn from author Peter Knight in his "Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia," Volume One, ABC-CLIO, 2003, that "from 1945 to 1955 under Project Paperclip and its successors, the U.S. government recruited over 1,600 German and Austrian scientists and engineers in a variety of fields such as aircraft design, missile technology and biological warfare. Among the specialists in the latter field who ended up working in the U.S. were Walter Schreiber, Erich Traub and Kurt Blome, who had been involved with medical experiments on concentration camp inmates to test biological warfare agents. Since Britain, France and the Soviet Union were also engaged in recruiting these scientists, the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) wished to deny their services to other powers, and therefore altered or concealed the records of their Nazi past and involvement in war crimes." So Nazi scientists, who formerly experimented on concentration camp inmates, were transported to America to work on dangerous pathogens, in Maryland? Can we trust that the same group that "altered" the records of their past war crimes, (in effect assisting them with their illegal entry), will tell the public the whole truth when something very, very bad happens?
It seems that the Chinese are not "immune" to accidents either. In an article in the Sixth Tone online news letter, by Yuan Ye, on December 9, 2019, also very near to the time of the first official announcement of the Covid-19 infection, we learn of yet another situation. The Lanzhou Veterinary Research Institute published the results of an investigation by local authorities to determine the causes of a recent release of brucellosis bacteria into the air. Apparently fumes from the factory were inadequately sterilized, and thus the bacteria was released into the air. The pharmaceutical factory has been ordered to suspend its operations, and over 200 people in Gansu province were infected, including many at the nearby Lanzhou University.
Brucellosis is normally an animal-borne disease that causes flu-like symptoms and, potentially, lingering problems, according to Chinese officials. (The reality is that it can also trigger potentially fatal complications in people). Brucellosis - also known as Malta, Mediterranean, or undulant fever - is a zoonotic disease (similar to Sars and especially Covid, a disease that has passed from animals into humans) that mainly affects animals, including livestock and dogs, which can in turn transmit the bacteria to humans through direct contact. Symptoms include fever, chills, sweating, lethargy, and aches and pains, according to the World Health Organization. In the absence of early diagnosis and treatment, brucellosis can become a chronic condition that is difficult to cure. (It is nearly impossible, actually, as it requires a combination of strong antibiotics).
In China, brucellosis is a Class B disease, ranking below a more serious category that includes cholera and plague. And yet, according to a report from the World Health Organization (WHO), in China COVID-19 was also included in the statutory report of Class B infectious diseases on 20 January 2020.
A previous brucellosis outbreak occurred in China in 2011, when an agricultural university in the northeastern province of Heilongjiang reported 28 cases stemming from infected goats that were being used in lab experimentation. The school publicly apologized, two of the administrators were fired, and the government offered each of the students affected around 61,000 yuan (then $9,550) in compensation.
The Lanzhou Veterinary Research Institute is China's only authorized research center for working with the live virus that causes foot-and-mouth disease, (which is highly contagious) and is reportedly one of the few in China (out of 20 or more, see above) with Biosafety Level 3 labs. And again we find here the waffling phrase, "authorized" employed. In a report from the Beijing News we learn that students at the institute often forgo wearing masks and taking other precautions.
Recall how above we were told by Chinese authorities that as many as 200 people had tested positive for brucellosis after this "accident" at the factory near the Lanzhou lab? As of November 15, 2020, a total of 21,847 people had been tested, of whom 3,245 had been confirmed positive by the Gansu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, a report in the Global Times of China, said. It seems that unless we follow the updated reports, we really will not be properly informed as to the severity of these outbreaks.
In an article from the South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong-based English-language newspaper founded in 1903, (owned by Alibaba by the way), which in a 2019 survey by the Chinese University of Hong Kong was regarded as the most credible paid newspaper in Hong Kong, we finally learn more about the cause of the accident.
From July 24, 2019 to August 20, Zhongmu Lanzhou biological pharmaceutical factory, also known as the Lanzhou Bio-pharmaceutical Plant, and owned by China Animal Husbandry, used expired disinfectant in the process of Brucella vaccine production for animal use, which led to the incomplete sterilization of the waste gas from the production fermentation tank. The Lanzhou Veterinary Research Institute is located close to the factory that produced the vaccines, the Gansu Provincial Health Commission said recently. People working at the Lanzhou Veterinary Research Institute, which was downwind from the factory, developed antibodies from breathing in waste air in July and August, the Government report said.
According to their advertisements, China Animal Husbandry Industry Co., Ltd. (CAHIC), who owns the pharmaceutical factory, is the animal husbandry backbone of China National Agricultural Development Group Corporation which is an agricultural conglomerate under direct Assets Governance of the State-owned Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council. CAHIC is important in China's veterinary drug and animal feed sectors, and a supplier of vaccines against animal diseases such as the highly pathogenic avian influenza. Their veterinary vaccines and drugs are used in nearly 60 countries around the world.
Notice that they had an incident at their plant as described above, involving some thousands of infected people, and this incident was related to their using expired safety equipment. And, that they are controlled by the State or Government of China, and that they provide vaccines for avian (bird flu or bat flu) influenza and swine flu, among others.
America and China are not alone in having had accidents relating to research in dangerous pathogens. In an article by J. Kaiser titled "Synthetic biology: attempt to patent artificial organism draws a protest", published in Science, 2007, we learn that in 2007, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred at the Pirbright Institute for Animal Health in Surrey, England, leading to the slaughter of more than 2,100 animals (cows and pigs) at neighboring farms in Surrey and Berkshire. A study of the case showed that pathogens likely leaked through wastewater treatment pipes attached to the facility, according to P. Ghosh in his 2011 article in BBC News Science & Environment.
At the time of the incident, official investigations indicated that the virus could have originated from the Pirbright site, where two separate organizations were based: the Institute for Animal Health and the private firm Merial Animal Health Ltd. No prosecution was brought against either organization after Surrey County Council said there was a lack of evidence to pinpoint the exact source of the outbreak, which cost the farming industry tens of millions of pounds.
The twenty-one kilometer spread of the disease was probably due to a live virus used in the development of a vaccine leaking from faulty pipes and spreading from the site, but since both the government facility and the private one used the same drainage system, neither could be found at fault. However a later report indicated that the UK Government provided compensation for the farmers directly involved.
In a joint statement, the Institute for Animal Health and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council said: "The nature of the world leading research carried out at IAH means that it is necessary for work to be conducted on dangerous viral pathogens. Since it is impossible to guarantee that pathogens will not occasionally escape from primary containment, for instance due to accidental breakages or spills in the laboratory, the facilities at IAH are operated within multiple layers of containment." None of which, apparently, helped in this situation.
In the scientific community, scientists often keep their research findings close to the chest, and do not let colleagues know the details until the results are published in a referred journal. Only then are their colleagues free to comment in that journal's "Letters to the Editor" column or start projects of their own to replicate or build upon the original findings. Conversely, some set out to prove that their colleagues' results are flawed. This is called the scientific method. But what happens when their scientific method results in another Covid-19 or other dread disease contagion due to their delay in letting other scientists and the general public know just what is going on?
Another worry arises from the military aspects of this research. Biological warfare has been termed "The Poor Man's Atomic Bomb," and Dr. William R. Beisel, USAMRIID director of science, stated in a New York Times interview that "any terrorist organization-or Third World country, need not go to the expense of recombinant DNA to produce effective biological weapons. You can produce biological weapons in your basement with very little money." Or in your very own garage laboratory, the one that is not required to report either its location or scientific operations to the CDC.
Well, my rant is complete, for now. I think that it is very clear that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is not being told to the general public by any of the players involved in biological research of dangerous pathogens, worldwide. Any precautions that I may have instigated in your minds should be considered as actual concerns and not "conspiracy theories", in my opinion. Let's continue in the next chapter with what this means for us in regards to the alien message contents. And see what they tell us about who might be responsible for this Covid-19 mess. Yes, fingers will begin to be pointed, so to speak.
So, made it all the way to the bottom did we? Merry Christmas.
Biohazard Labs and "Mistakes Were Made"
Before I share with you the next sections, and their extra contents from our alien communication, I believe a bit of background information will come in handy. It will help us to understand a bit more about the scientific research procedures that are in common practice today. This chapter has some complicated terms in it, with some from the medical field and others the legal field. But the more that you can glean from it, the more the revelations in later chapters will make sense. So please bear with me.
In the laboratories that conduct research and development of new and exciting virus and bacteria strains, as well as DNA modifications, there are some requirements that the Governments of the world have instituted. These are intended to protect the public from exposure to dread diseases. The various Governmental bodies decided that safety standards needed to be applied to laboratories that work with dangerous bacteria and virus concoctions. Four biosafety levels have thus been designated (1 through 4) by them.
The level assignments are based upon how dangerous the materials are that you will be handling or storing. Factors such as how easily it can infect someone, how severe the disease is, and whether and how it can be transmitted to others are important. And along with those risk factors they take into consideration the nature of the work being conducted. Based upon your "score", they assign a Biological Safety Level (BSL) that you must maintain at all times.
Higher numbers signify more dangerous materials, stricter requirements and more frequent safety inspections. And of course, a higher level also indicates more elaborate and therefore more costly safety requirements. Lower levels, such as BSL-1 and possibly BSL-2 in some circumstances, do not require inspection by outsiders, but rather are considered to be relying on "self-policing" measures. And the policing is often performed by members of the same educational entity or laboratory staff that runs the facility.
When they speak of Containment or Biocontainment, they refer to the microbiological practices, safety equipment, and facility safeguards that protect laboratory workers, the environment, and especially the general public, from exposure to infectious microorganisms and toxins that are handled and stored in the laboratory. Or at least those safeguards that do not tend to "bother" the scientists, or "hinder" their work. Because experience has taught us that even scientists and techs that work with deadly diseases get sloppy or even lazy from time to time. They are human, after all.
In the journal <i>Annals of Health Law</i> Volume 22, Issue 1, Winter 2013, there is an interesting article by Clark J. Lee, JD, Patrick P. Rose, PhD, and Earl Stoddard III, PhD. It has the descriptive title of "Enhancing Communication Between Scientists, Government Officials, and the Lay Public: Advancing Science and Protecting the Public's Welfare through BetterMulit-Stakeholder Interfacting." It's available online at: Enhancing Communication Between Scientists, Government Officials, and the Lay Public: Advancing Science and Protecting the Public's Welfare through Better Multi-Stakeholder Interfacing, and it explains the situation in layman's terms. But one paragraph in particular grabbed my attention and I believe that it deserves to be reproduced here in its entirety:
"Because most scientists believe that their research should be conducted without interference from codes, rules, regulations, or laws that might impinge their intellectual endeavors, there is often disagreement between scientists and government officials as to what truly is in the 'best interests' of the public's welfare."
I'm not attempting to bash scientists here. But I think it is important to keep in mind that some highly intelligent people such as our top scientists, seem to have a proclivity to become annoyed at strict government regulations, and to sometimes respond by either ignoring or bypassing them from time to time. Which leads me to wonder just how much of this "self-policing" is actually done.
Why should this concern us, when these "self-policing" labs are mainly the BSL-1 or BSL-2 facilities that we are speaking of; the laboratories that handle materials that are not as potentially dangerous as others? Because this same attitude and lower level of enforcement and inspections can lead to one colleague from a much more dangerous BSL-3 or BSL-4 laboratory, deciding to "share" his "amazing, life-changing, Nobel prize-worthy" latest discovery with a friend in a BSL-2 lab. Just to see if they have something that might be patented, published, or both. And the situation can then go south very, very quickly.
Most of this chapter will be concerned with BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories, as those are the ones that impact the most on our story. Let's briefly examine the differences between the two, in regard to security and safety levels. This will be helpful in the next chapter when we uncover supplemental meanings included in the message from our extraterrestrials.
BSL-3. A Level 3 lab is allowed to handle such agents as "Yellow fever, St. Louis encephalitis, West Nile Virus, and bacterial infections such as Brucellosis" among others. We are assured that the work with these agents is strictly controlled and must be registered with all appropriate government agencies. But I will be providing hard evidence below that this is not actually the case.
Something that comes to mind when we read about Biological Safety Levels in labs is the word disingenuous. This five-dollar word is something that we should perhaps keep in mind, since this method is employed in many scientific publications, and especially in those from NASA. And no, I am not picking on all of the good people at NASA, but I can provide the evidence that some of their publications employ disingenuous methods. It may be defined as the actions of someone who is not being candid or sincere, who is pretending to know less about something than he really does. What we might call a calculating person.
An easy example might be: "This town is super-safe, we've had only fifteen murders since 1947 - about the same number as you would have in many small towns in America." This might be a correct statement, but also a disingenuous one. The town actually had no murders in its first fifty years and fifteen in the past twenty-two. It's roughly equivalent to not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Here's another example of a disingenuous statement, made in respect to the materials that one is allowed to work with in a BSL-3 lab: "These are indigenous or exotic agents that may cause serious or lethal disease via aerosol transmission, i.e., simple inhalation of particles or droplets." This tells us that a laboratory scientist or worker could be exposed to something floating in the air that surrounds him or her. It continues with "The pathogenicity and communicability of these agents dictates the next level of protective procedures and barriers." So, we need to tighten up the lower level safety barriers, and just how do we do that? "Add to all the BSL 2 practices and equipment even more stringent access control and decontamination of all wastes, including lab clothing before laundering, within the lab facility." So basically, wash your hands, which we Covid-19 sufferers have heard a few times. And? "More protective primary barriers are used in BSL 3 laboratories, including solid-front wraparound gowns, scrub suits or coveralls made of materials to keep the elements out (such as Tyvek) and respirators (fancy face masks with filters) as necessary." Did you catch the disingenuous phrase that was included? Yes, it was "as necessary."
This phrase "as necessary" implies that a decision is to be made regarding whether we take this extra step of protection or we do not. Perhaps a word that would make me sleep a little better at night would be "required", as in "respirators with adequate filters are absolutely required at all times".
On the next page is an image provided by the US Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. It shows a researcher who is working with influenza virus under BSL-3 conditions. He has a respirator, and his hands are inside of a biosafety cabinet. Please examine that image and we will continue.
PUBDOM_Biosafety Level 3-Influenza_virus_research.png
What's wrong with that picture? Well, for starters, that biosafety cabinet resembles the cheap plastic shield that my Bank recently put up to protect its tellers when they handle banking transactions during the Covid pandemia. It's open at the top and bottom, and is really only a sort of shield around the middle area where the money and documents go in and out. Pathogens are, or could become, smart enough to escape to the bottom or top of this "cage", could they not? Perhaps if they received the proper training? (I jest.)
And while his exhaled breath seems to be contained within the face-shield respirator, his ears and the entire back of his head and neck are exposed. So when those pesky viruses manage to escape the cage to the top or bottom, they could land right on the back of his head. Supposedly the negative air pressure inside the chamber tends to keep the air inside and not allow the air-born particles to escape to the area where the lab tech is working outside. Unless, that is, he happens to scratch his neck. But that almost never happens in real life, right?
And by the way, this public domain image is courtesy of the US Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. In the photo description it tells us: "This 2005 photograph depicts one of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's staff microbiologists examining reconstructed 1918 Pandemic Influenza Virus contained within a calibrated vial with a supernatant culture medium." It continues with: "The 1918 virus was recreated in order to identify the characteristics that made this organism such a deadly pathogen. Research efforts such as this, enables researchers to develop new vaccines and treatments for future pandemic influenza viruses. The 1918 Spanish flu epidemic was caused by an influenza A (H1N1) virus, killing more than 500,000 people in the United States, and up to 50 million worldwide. The possible source for this was a newly emerged virus from a swine or an avian host of a mutated H1N1 virus, and their image shows one of their researchers who is working with influenza virus under BSL-3 safety conditions." Since the Spanish flu epidemic killed as many as fifty million people, and it is being worked on in a Level 3 Biolab, how much of a threat to mankind's existence are the items that they are working on in a Level 4 lab?
We've been assured by responsible government authorities and medical staff that Covid-19 can land on body surfaces and remain there for quite some time. So my fears of neck-scratching or contamination from unprotected surfaces might not be so far off after all. And this is the CDC's own image of someone working on nothing less than one of the deadliest diseases in history.
BSL-4. A Level 4 lab is required when agents are extremely dangerous and pose a high risk of life-threatening disease. Highly dangerous (kills millions of people) and a High Risk of life-threatening diseases falls in this category. I repeated that for emphasis, and we will soon understand why I did. Examples of agents that require the safety standards of a BSL-4 laboratory are the Ebola virus, the Lassa virus, and any agent with unknown risks of pathogenicity and transmission.
Consider a new virus, one that has no cure at present, and one for which we don't really have "patient zero" to examine. One without any real knowledge of the long-term effects, nor what secondary effects might accompany it or become triggered by this virus. Would that meet those standards given above, for a BSL-4? And if it has already taken more than a million lives, wouldn't that be considered at least somewhat "High Risk" and "life-threatening"?
So you can probably guess which biohazard level a laboratory is required to maintain in order to handle or work on the Covid-19 type viruses, and any new versions that mutate from that original strain, right? No, they only require BSL-3. Yes, the one from the previous image with the researcher's neck open to the air, ready for scratching. But that shouldn't really surprise us, since we learned from the first image above that the 1918 Flu virus that killed fifty million people is also being worked on in a BSL-3 lab. Should we be at all concerned? Or petrified?
And speaking of "any agent with unknown risks of pathogenicity and transmission" , which requires a BSL-4 laboratory, or one with the absolute best in security and safety, wouldn't that include any newly discovered swine, or bird flu virus, at least until they are studied further? No, not that is, until it makes the list of the CDC or other Governmental bodies and is declared as high risk and life-threatening (to either humans or animals or both). When it hits their list, the requirements are upgraded. First you hit the Government's list, and then you obtain a protection level. Sort of like shutting the barn door after all of the .... well, you know what I mean. Having to obey some human imposed regulations prior to their being accepted as factual reminds us of the human-imposed speed of light limitations that the aliens seem to pay no attention to.
Of course, responsible scientists are allowed to declare, in any emergency outbreak, that a new virus discovery seems to meet those requirements for higher safety - if they want. When they are sure, as in when they have studied it, handled it, and passed samples of it around to fellow researchers, and carefully checked all of the existing publications, etc. Something like, "hey guys, we figured it out, don't touch that that new virus anymore!" Because we don't want them to be like the boy that cried wolf, do we?
Yes, please be that boy, for our sakes.
BSL- 4 facilities provide the maximum in protection and containment. To the BSL-3 practices, we add requirements for complete clothing change before entry, a shower on exit and decontamination of all materials prior to leaving the facility. Higher safety and security standards are applied in a BSL-4, so that "any agent with unknown risks of pathogenicity and transmission" do not go on to infect the general public, let alone the poor lab technicians. In fact all of these unknown types are considered to require BSL-4, at least according to the Centers for Disease Control. And yet newly discovered and not yet fully understood swine and bird flu viruses, whose patient zero or first location of contagion remains undiscovered, are studied in BSL-3 labs and not BSL-4. Why, other than for the convenience of the laboratory owners, is that allowed? Well, so the greatest numbers of scientists and pharmaceutical companies have the potential to find a patentable and profitable solution. And they are getting paid while they search. And also, so that we can more quickly come up with a cure for Covid-19, and save lives! And then attain fame and fortune for its discovery.
On the next page is an image from a BSL-4 lab. Notice that both members of the scientific team are both protected and protecting us as well, from any contamination, by wearing positive pressure suits, with their own filtered air supply.
PUBDOM_BIO4_NIAID_Integrated_Research_Facility_-_Positive_Pressure_Personnel_Suit.pngWhich level of protection should we be using when handling the Corona Virus or any other new, unknown killers, in your opinion? Yes, the BSL-4 labs cost quite a bit more to operate. So the Military will need to use more of its budget in their search for the next "protection" from "possible bio weapons" that they study, solely in the interests of "defense". And the pharmaceutical companies will have to explain to their stockholders just why their research and development expenses increased this quarter. But at least they will still have shareholders left alive to explain things to.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention inspect BSL-3 facilities and review commissioning documentation, but no single agency has oversight over all BSL-3 facilities. Just how many BSL-3 facilities are there in the United States? We really have no idea. And that's the scary truth.
In 2005, two separate surveys were carried out by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to determine just how many operational BSL-3 laboratories there were in the United States. A similar survey by the American Society for Microbiology reported 292 facilities, but in a report for Congress by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services they reported "more than 600".
In 2007, a report to the US Government Accountability Office by K. Rhodes, titled "High-Containment Biosafety Laboratories: Preliminary Observations on the Oversight of the Proliferation of BSL-3 and BSL-4 Laboratories in the United States", indicates that a check of the registered BSL-3 laboratories with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the US Department of Agriculture (APHIS-USDA) for select agent research, revealed 1,345 laboratories. Wow, it went from a bunch, to more than 600 and now more than 1,345. Notice that the word "select agent research" is used, which means that they are only counting the laboratories that work with certain specified biological hazards, and thus this is not an indication of the entire number of BSL-3 laboratories. (Yes, fellow readers, the disingenuous word in that paragraph was "select".)
This might be confusing, so I'll break it down for all of us. There is a list of what they consider "select agents". If you work on something that is on that list, you must be registered. And SARS-associated Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) is one of those listed agents. My point is that until it makes the list, that is until a scientist has studied its characteristics, it is not published on the "select agents" list, and thus you don't have to register with the CDC the location of your laboratory, nor the work you do with it. Thus the truly "unknown" number of BSL-3 laboratories.
For some time, SARS has been on the select agent list, but Covid-19, the 2019 strain, had not yet been placed on the list. It's sort of like dipping your hand into a barrel without knowing just what is inside it. Once someone learns what is inside, they can place a label on it and warn people with "watch out, this is some deadly stuff!" but until then, it's just another barrel. And of course, a scientist researcher wouldn't want to disclose anything about those contents until they know if it's worth publishing, or might be good for gaining some grant money, or perhaps has the potential to be patented. So in the meantime, it's just you and the barrel, and all of your technicians, and fellow scientists, and the pharmaceutical representative that came to look at it, and all of their families, etc.
And so, how many of these BSL-3 laboratories are there in the US? The truth is that the number of BSL-3 facilities in the US is currently unknown because federal registration is required only if select agent (very dangerous pathogens listed in the National SA Registry) or NIH-funded recombinant DNA (rDNA) work is conducted. By the way, this last comment is straight from the The National Institutes of Health, a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website. So if <i>they</i> don't really know how many there are, and the CDC and Homeland Security are also ignorant of the correct numbers, as we saw above, then officially "nobody knows".
So you could easily be experimenting on recombinant DNA (rDNA) or on very dangerous pathogens, as long as they have not yet made the National Select Agents Registry list, and you happen to be self-funded. Laboratories run by Pharmaceutical companies are self-funded, for instance, as well as home or garage type labs. My understanding is that Frankenstein's lab was self-funded. Under those conditions you would never need to report where your laboratories are physically located, and they would thus not be inspected by the CDC either. That seems to be very convenient for some laboratories, I imagine. By the way, I gathered some of the above information from the web pages online at the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention.
Are things any different, regarding the disclosure of BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories in China? China has, as they stated in June of 2020, "more than 20" BSL-3 laboratories as part of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, including at least one mobile unit. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic in China, authorities in May of 2020 "unveiled a plan... that requires every province to establish at least one BSL-3 lab, and major cities to have at least one BSL-2 lab." I'm a bit confused by their stated reasons for constructing BSL-3 labs in every province in China. Perhaps they see these as possible revenue sources.
The Covid-19 virus possibly started in China, and yet they are going to construct even more laboratories that are able to handle the most dangerous materials? Wouldn't these new labs also be used to "create" something biological that makes money, and not just be a byproduct of spending those huge sums of money to "protect" the Chinese people when a dread disease next raises its head? And wouldn't having fewer BSL-3 labs also mean less potential exposure points? China tells us that they have only "more than 20" BSL-3 labs. Yes, and the 1,345 that the US has counted so far, is also a number "more than 20", and thus we see the "less than the whole truth" tactic being employed once more, this time in China. If we are naive enough to believe their figure of "more than 20" represents a number that is close to 20, then so be it. The number 5,000 is also more than 20. It seems as if the Chinese understand how to be disingenuous as well. Can we, as a human race, survive anything less than complete candor from our scientists?
While we don't know for sure the true origin or cause of the Covid-19 virus (because you have probably not yet read what the aliens tell us in the next chapter), the chances of it being related to a laboratory accident are very "slight", correct? I mean, this type of thing hasn't happened in many years, right?
On November 24, 2019, just prior to the date when the first Covid-19 case was reported, the US Centers for Disease and Control (CDC), entered the Army's premier biological laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland, for an inspection of their safety procedures. Yes, this was a surprise inspection. This resulted in a report of two breaches of containment and led to the CDC issuing a cease and desist order, halting the high-level research at that base. Both the BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratoris were closed due to noted lapses in biosafety protocals. Can we even imagine just how potentially dangerous the situation was that it required the closing of a major Military facility?
The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), was not restored to full operations for nearly eight months, while investigations were underway and remedial actions taken. We learn about their return to full capacity, allowing them to conduct work on infectious diseases, from a press release given by Senators Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen and Representatives David Trone and Jamie Raskin. No political pressure was applied to re-open those lucrative employment centers with opportunities for grants, I'm sure.
The lab itself reported that the shutdown order was due to ongoing infrastructure issues with wastewater decontamination, and the CDC declined to provide the reason for the shutdown due to national security concerns. However, TV Station WJLA-TV in Washington, D.C., available online at their Virtual Channel 7 webpage, tells us, in an article by Diana DiGangi on January 22, 2020, that CDC documents outline the violations that they uncovered, some of which they labeled as serious.
Apparently the base labs were working with "non-human primates", who had been infected with an unknown agent, the identity of which had been redacted (covered over in the infamous black ink we see so often on reports that are released via a Freedom of Information Request).
This editing of the report was reportedly done because by disclosing even the identity of the agent or the locations where the agent was undergoing research, would "endanger public health or safety".
One of the violations that the CDC noted during their inspections at Fort Detrick was that of an individual who partially entered a room, on multiple occasions, without the required respiratory protection, at a time when researchers were performing procedures on a non-human primate, secured on a table. They also observed a lab worker disposing of waste in a biohazardous waste bin without gloves on. On a side note, and strictly out of curiosity, why do they feel the need to add the words "non-human" as a prefix to the "primate" they speak of? Humans are primates after all, but generally when we speak of research on humans we simply say "human trials", right?
Another violation involved personnel who were propping open a door while removing large amounts of biohazardous waste from an adjacent room. They further noted that this second room contained people who were typically not required to wear respiratory protection. As you may recall, this is similar to my thought that perhaps a high-safety level BSL-3 or BSL-4 lab scientist or technician might contaminate a lower level BSL-2 or BSL-1 lab, by accident.
More "moderate" safety violations include some personnel not having the proper safety training, failure to maintain an accurate or current inventory for a toxin, and cracks around a conduit box, cracks in the ceiling, and in the seam above a biological safety cabinet, in one laboratory building. You would think that the Department of Defense could afford to patch those cracks. But these labs are back in business as of this writing.
According to Aaron Davis, Michael E. Ruane and Nelson Hernandez, in their article "Lab and Community Make For Uneasy Neighbors", in the August 2, 2008 edition of the Washington Post, the Fort Detrick facility acquired the nickname "Fort Doom" while offensive biological warfare research was undertaken there. (5,000 bombs containing anthrax spores were produced at the base during World War II).
Even more interesting, we learn from author Peter Knight in his "Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia," Volume One, ABC-CLIO, 2003, that "from 1945 to 1955 under Project Paperclip and its successors, the U.S. government recruited over 1,600 German and Austrian scientists and engineers in a variety of fields such as aircraft design, missile technology and biological warfare. Among the specialists in the latter field who ended up working in the U.S. were Walter Schreiber, Erich Traub and Kurt Blome, who had been involved with medical experiments on concentration camp inmates to test biological warfare agents. Since Britain, France and the Soviet Union were also engaged in recruiting these scientists, the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) wished to deny their services to other powers, and therefore altered or concealed the records of their Nazi past and involvement in war crimes." So Nazi scientists, who formerly experimented on concentration camp inmates, were transported to America to work on dangerous pathogens, in Maryland? Can we trust that the same group that "altered" the records of their past war crimes, (in effect assisting them with their illegal entry), will tell the public the whole truth when something very, very bad happens?
It seems that the Chinese are not "immune" to accidents either. In an article in the Sixth Tone online news letter, by Yuan Ye, on December 9, 2019, also very near to the time of the first official announcement of the Covid-19 infection, we learn of yet another situation. The Lanzhou Veterinary Research Institute published the results of an investigation by local authorities to determine the causes of a recent release of brucellosis bacteria into the air. Apparently fumes from the factory were inadequately sterilized, and thus the bacteria was released into the air. The pharmaceutical factory has been ordered to suspend its operations, and over 200 people in Gansu province were infected, including many at the nearby Lanzhou University.
Brucellosis is normally an animal-borne disease that causes flu-like symptoms and, potentially, lingering problems, according to Chinese officials. (The reality is that it can also trigger potentially fatal complications in people). Brucellosis - also known as Malta, Mediterranean, or undulant fever - is a zoonotic disease (similar to Sars and especially Covid, a disease that has passed from animals into humans) that mainly affects animals, including livestock and dogs, which can in turn transmit the bacteria to humans through direct contact. Symptoms include fever, chills, sweating, lethargy, and aches and pains, according to the World Health Organization. In the absence of early diagnosis and treatment, brucellosis can become a chronic condition that is difficult to cure. (It is nearly impossible, actually, as it requires a combination of strong antibiotics).
In China, brucellosis is a Class B disease, ranking below a more serious category that includes cholera and plague. And yet, according to a report from the World Health Organization (WHO), in China COVID-19 was also included in the statutory report of Class B infectious diseases on 20 January 2020.
A previous brucellosis outbreak occurred in China in 2011, when an agricultural university in the northeastern province of Heilongjiang reported 28 cases stemming from infected goats that were being used in lab experimentation. The school publicly apologized, two of the administrators were fired, and the government offered each of the students affected around 61,000 yuan (then $9,550) in compensation.
The Lanzhou Veterinary Research Institute is China's only authorized research center for working with the live virus that causes foot-and-mouth disease, (which is highly contagious) and is reportedly one of the few in China (out of 20 or more, see above) with Biosafety Level 3 labs. And again we find here the waffling phrase, "authorized" employed. In a report from the Beijing News we learn that students at the institute often forgo wearing masks and taking other precautions.
Recall how above we were told by Chinese authorities that as many as 200 people had tested positive for brucellosis after this "accident" at the factory near the Lanzhou lab? As of November 15, 2020, a total of 21,847 people had been tested, of whom 3,245 had been confirmed positive by the Gansu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, a report in the Global Times of China, said. It seems that unless we follow the updated reports, we really will not be properly informed as to the severity of these outbreaks.
In an article from the South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong-based English-language newspaper founded in 1903, (owned by Alibaba by the way), which in a 2019 survey by the Chinese University of Hong Kong was regarded as the most credible paid newspaper in Hong Kong, we finally learn more about the cause of the accident.
From July 24, 2019 to August 20, Zhongmu Lanzhou biological pharmaceutical factory, also known as the Lanzhou Bio-pharmaceutical Plant, and owned by China Animal Husbandry, used expired disinfectant in the process of Brucella vaccine production for animal use, which led to the incomplete sterilization of the waste gas from the production fermentation tank. The Lanzhou Veterinary Research Institute is located close to the factory that produced the vaccines, the Gansu Provincial Health Commission said recently. People working at the Lanzhou Veterinary Research Institute, which was downwind from the factory, developed antibodies from breathing in waste air in July and August, the Government report said.
According to their advertisements, China Animal Husbandry Industry Co., Ltd. (CAHIC), who owns the pharmaceutical factory, is the animal husbandry backbone of China National Agricultural Development Group Corporation which is an agricultural conglomerate under direct Assets Governance of the State-owned Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council. CAHIC is important in China's veterinary drug and animal feed sectors, and a supplier of vaccines against animal diseases such as the highly pathogenic avian influenza. Their veterinary vaccines and drugs are used in nearly 60 countries around the world.
Notice that they had an incident at their plant as described above, involving some thousands of infected people, and this incident was related to their using expired safety equipment. And, that they are controlled by the State or Government of China, and that they provide vaccines for avian (bird flu or bat flu) influenza and swine flu, among others.
America and China are not alone in having had accidents relating to research in dangerous pathogens. In an article by J. Kaiser titled "Synthetic biology: attempt to patent artificial organism draws a protest", published in Science, 2007, we learn that in 2007, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred at the Pirbright Institute for Animal Health in Surrey, England, leading to the slaughter of more than 2,100 animals (cows and pigs) at neighboring farms in Surrey and Berkshire. A study of the case showed that pathogens likely leaked through wastewater treatment pipes attached to the facility, according to P. Ghosh in his 2011 article in BBC News Science & Environment.
At the time of the incident, official investigations indicated that the virus could have originated from the Pirbright site, where two separate organizations were based: the Institute for Animal Health and the private firm Merial Animal Health Ltd. No prosecution was brought against either organization after Surrey County Council said there was a lack of evidence to pinpoint the exact source of the outbreak, which cost the farming industry tens of millions of pounds.
The twenty-one kilometer spread of the disease was probably due to a live virus used in the development of a vaccine leaking from faulty pipes and spreading from the site, but since both the government facility and the private one used the same drainage system, neither could be found at fault. However a later report indicated that the UK Government provided compensation for the farmers directly involved.
In a joint statement, the Institute for Animal Health and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council said: "The nature of the world leading research carried out at IAH means that it is necessary for work to be conducted on dangerous viral pathogens. Since it is impossible to guarantee that pathogens will not occasionally escape from primary containment, for instance due to accidental breakages or spills in the laboratory, the facilities at IAH are operated within multiple layers of containment." None of which, apparently, helped in this situation.
In the scientific community, scientists often keep their research findings close to the chest, and do not let colleagues know the details until the results are published in a referred journal. Only then are their colleagues free to comment in that journal's "Letters to the Editor" column or start projects of their own to replicate or build upon the original findings. Conversely, some set out to prove that their colleagues' results are flawed. This is called the scientific method. But what happens when their scientific method results in another Covid-19 or other dread disease contagion due to their delay in letting other scientists and the general public know just what is going on?
Another worry arises from the military aspects of this research. Biological warfare has been termed "The Poor Man's Atomic Bomb," and Dr. William R. Beisel, USAMRIID director of science, stated in a New York Times interview that "any terrorist organization-or Third World country, need not go to the expense of recombinant DNA to produce effective biological weapons. You can produce biological weapons in your basement with very little money." Or in your very own garage laboratory, the one that is not required to report either its location or scientific operations to the CDC.
Well, my rant is complete, for now. I think that it is very clear that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is not being told to the general public by any of the players involved in biological research of dangerous pathogens, worldwide. Any precautions that I may have instigated in your minds should be considered as actual concerns and not "conspiracy theories", in my opinion. Let's continue in the next chapter with what this means for us in regards to the alien message contents. And see what they tell us about who might be responsible for this Covid-19 mess. Yes, fingers will begin to be pointed, so to speak.
So, made it all the way to the bottom did we? Merry Christmas.
