|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: |
|
man made aids ? |
|
by FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION - HENK RUYSSENAARS
(No verified email address)
Address: holland |
10 Jul 2002
|
|
The US-NAS-NRC (National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council ) would help the military to develop " a new infective micro-organism that might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious diseases." |
FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION - HENK RUYSSENAARS - THE NETHERLANDS
MAN MADE AIDS ?
(by Henk Ruyssenaars)
The Netherlands - July 10-02 - While checking the news from the International AIDS Conference in Barcelona, the following came to my mind. In December 1972 the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SIPRI - informed in Scandinavia accredited foreign correspondents (like me) about new information - in a coming yearbook* by SIPRI on the development and problems of biological and chemical (CB) warfare.
America's premier biological weapons testing facility in Fort Detrick*, Maryland earlier celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary ( April 1968) by sponsoring a controversial symposium on the "entry and control of foreign nucleic acids." Around the same time the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, informed the U.S. Department of Defence about the following :
The US-NAS-NRC (National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council ) would help the military to develop " a new infective micro-organism that might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious diseases."
On pages 313 and 314 the following text (still) can be found, describing - as it looks to many - the final stage of experimenting and planning, before introducing a CB-weapon which should be : "refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious diseases." (Like HIV/AIDS ?)
The text* in the SIPRI book concerns this : "In 1969 a US Department of defense spokesman provided a Congressional committee (US House of Representatives, 91st Congress, 1st Session. Washington, 1969 ; 104-44.) with the following information which everybody should judge for her- or himself :
QUOTE : "The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare.
A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations :
1. All biological agents up to the present time are representatives of naturally occurring diseases, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive purposes.
2. Within the next five to ten years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective micro-organism which could differ in certain important aspects from any know disease- causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.
3. A research programme to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately five years at a total cost of $ 10 million.
4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientists in the field, almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of Sciences National research Council (NAS-NRC).
The matter was discussed with the NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were made to initiate the program. However, decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program, and our reluctance to involve the NAS-NRC in such controversial endeavour have led us to postpone it for the past two years. It is a highly controversial issue, and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large
populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done, there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it, there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate research program". End quote.
See also : US admits it tested nerve gas on its sailors, below.
SO ? ABOUT HIV/AIDS ? WHODUNNIT ?
Foreign Press Foundation
Henk Ruyssenaars
The Netherlands
fpf (at) chello.nl
There are no secrets or complots,
it's only information which you don't have yet !
*SIPRI - (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) : Book : CB Weapons Today - Volume II - ISBN - 91-85114-16-2 - Excerpt from page 313 and 314.
http://www.sipri.se/
*SIPRI's US Reference {45} : Department of Defense appropriations for 1970. Part 6. Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.
US House of Representatives, 91st Congress, 1st Session. Washington, 1969 ; 104-44.
*FORT DETRICK's own information about some experiments...
http://www.detrick.army.mil/detrick/cutting_edge/chapter9.cfm
US admits it tested nerve gas on its sailors :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,721936,00.html
FPF/HR |
Please Don't Feed the Trolls
Wikipedia defines an Internet Troll as: "An Internet troll is either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person." Boston IMC strives to provide both a grassroots media resource as well as a forum for people to contribute to a meaningful discussion about local issues. Please, when posting comments, be respectful of others and ignore those trying to interrupt or discourage meaningful discourse. Thank you.
-- Boston Indymedia volunteers
Due to on going anti spam work quick comments are currently broken please use the full comment form. We do hope to have quick comments back on line soon.
