EBOLA LIES: SECTION III
- Quarantines are Necessary
Examples of why quarantines must be mandatory for at least 21 days, and a person must be housed in a restricted facility, not at home
The potential downside to quarantines is a concern
- The U. S. Army to the Rescue
Are U. S. soldiers being sent to West Africa only to fight Ebola?
- Working Hard on Potential Ebola Treatments
- The Potential Treatments
- What If It Isn’t Ebola?
What is happening to the healthcare workers at an unprecedented rate?
Is this Ebola outbreak actually a bioweapon instead of a viral epidemic?
QUARANTINES ARE NECESSARY —
Quarantine, also known as enforced isolation, has been dramatically effective in decreasing the spread of the Ebola virus during its periodic outbreaks. In the field, the establishment of strict quarantine measures to prevent further virus transmission is still a major way to fight the infection. U.S. law permits the enforced individual quarantine of individuals infected with the Ebola virus.
A new Canadian study that projected travel patterns based on infection rates and recent flight schedules estimates that up to three Ebola-infected people could get on overseas flights every month from the three most-affected African countries. The findings, published in the journal Lancet, suggest that Ebola cases could be spread overseas by unwitting travelers from the worst-hit countries. According to one of the authors of the study, “controlling the outbreak at the source is the most important thing that needs to happen” to prevent the international spread of the virus.
That is why banning flights from Ebola-infected countries is essential to protecting other countries, in addition to quarantining anyone coming from an Ebola-infected country within the last 30 days.
In 2000, The New York Times reported:
The Ebola virus, which has caused deaths from high fever and bleeding in African outbreaks, can also infect without producing illness, according to a new finding by African and European scientists.
The possibility of asymptomatic infection was only suggested in earlier studies, they said in last week’s issue of The Lancet, a medical journal published in London. Now they said they had documented such infections for the first time. They found that the Ebola virus could persist in the blood of asymptomatic infected individuals for two weeks after they were first exposed to an infected individual. How much longer the virus can persist is unknown.
If people can be carriers without showing symptoms, it means control might be more difficult.
An immediate effect is to raise the need to reassess health policy about one of the most virulent viruses known and to determine how often healthy carriers transmit it, said the scientific team headed by Dr. E. M. Leroy of Franceville, Gabon.
Dr. Leroy’s team studied 25 individuals who never developed symptoms although they lived with family members and cared for them without using gloves and other precautions in two outbreaks in Gabon in 1996.
Using standard virologic techniques, the scientists from Gabon, Germany and France said they could not detect the virus in the blood of the healthy contacts. But Dr. Leroy succeeded by using a technique known as polymerase chain reaction to grow the tiny amount of virus present. Did that mean the person had Ebola?
On August 7, 2014, a biochemist with Oregon-based Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, said if, or when, Ebola does show up in the United States, the only way to combat the virus is through strict quarantines. “I’ve spoken to people who are experts on African diseases and they are not very sanguine about CDC’s ability to deal with things like this,” the doctor said. “Their experience in dealing with bacterial warfare is almost zero, but that’s almost what you have here.
The death rate of the current strain of Ebola now infecting people is about 70%. As a viral hemorrhagic fever, it is one of nine diseases which the federal government has the authority to forcibly quarantine. Quarantinable diseases by executive order are: cholera; diphtheria; infectious tuberculosis; plague; smallpox; yellow fever; viral hemorrhagic fevers; SARS; new types of flu (influenza) that could cause a pandemic. The U.S. has used governmental quarantine powers dating back to 1878.
“The thing that worries me is this is a virus and viruses are notoriously hard to combat, very difficult to beat because they are not alive most of the time,” said the doctor. “It does not live by itself, but it uses the living thing in which it is embedded to wake up and do its damage. There are viruses all over the place, we live in a sea of viruses, but when one wakes up you’re in a lot of trouble.”
A doctor and member of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness said, “The fear is they would put people suspected of being infected, but who are actually healthy, in with people who do have the virus, so the threat is you would get it once you’re in quarantine (even if healthy to begin with).”
There have been approximately 25 outbreaks of Ebola since it was first identified in 1976. How have previous outbreaks been controlled and stopped with seemingly small death toll numbers?
On August 28, 2014, the director of NIAID said, “Today we know the best way to prevent the spread of Ebola infection is through public health measures, including good infection control practices, isolation, contact tracing, quarantine, and provision of personal protective equipment.”
A paper was released September 10, 2014, by two doctors that were on the frontlines of the 1976 Ebola outbreak in Zaire, and they discussed the meticulous procedures that kept the limited death toll of the outbreak to 318 people.
When the doctors arrived in Zaire in 1976, the government had already quarantined 275,000 people in the Bumba Zone. Planes, boats, cars, strangers—all were banned from entering the cordoned off area. At first, the villagers were “fearful and agitated,” lacking the basic necessities needed to survive. When members of the International Commission arrived to help, the community was wary. Fortunately they were soon able to gain the trust of the people. “People along the road from the town …were relieved when we said we’d come to stop the disease’s spread, treat patients, and meet their families,” the paper states. Inside the quarantine zone, even more specific procedures were outlined to keep those within the bounds of it safe.
Now in 2014, the environment is drastically different. Attempts to quarantine during the current outbreak, led by the local armies and police, have been catastrophic. When the Liberian government attempted to contain the outbreak in Liberia through a quarantine in West Point—an exceptionally impoverished area near Monrovia—they did the opposite. With anywhere from 70K to 120K residents living in tiny shacks without running water, sanitation, or electricity, they left a struggling demographic without the means to protect themselves—many, without knowledge of what it was that necessitated protection. With people fighting for food, violent outbreaks between Liberians and the army began to heat up at the 10-day mark. When four were injured and one killed, the president officially lifted the quarantine.
In 1976, the doctors laid out specific guidelines to community members outside of the quarantine zones to help reduce the risk of the infection’s spread. Family members who became infected with the disease were placed in “huts outside their villages,” a procedure that allowed victims to be isolated outside of a hospital. The doctors then suggested one family member, “preferably someone who had recovered from the illness,” deliver food, water, and medicine to the patient each day until a medical professional could arrive on the scene. With the help of other community members, the doctors successfully educated the families of those who died about the dangers of handling the body in typical ritual fashion. “Credibility was gradually restored, especially when we began visiting villages accompanied by the three remaining nuns (survivors),” the doctors said in the paper.
Now in 2014, with the virus already widespread when international relief began pouring into West Africa, spending individual time in affected communities was not an option. Without this crucial period of trust building, many in the communities spent months under the impression that Ebola was either a hoax or a disease brought to West Africa by American nurses and doctors. The fallout of this loss of trust has had an enormous impact on the outbreak. Without a clear understanding of how Ebola is spread and when it is contagious, family members continued to bury their loved ones—who, at that point, are the most contagious—with typical burial rites. While doctors in West Africa now report success educating the communities and persuading them not to perform burials, the amount of burials already performed have infected hundreds if not thousands.
On October 24, 2014, it was announced that in the wake of the first confirmed Ebola virus case in New York City, the states of New York and New Jersey have set up a new screening system that goes above and beyond the guidelines already set up by federal officials. Under the new rules, state officials will establish a risk level by considering the countries that people have visited and their level of possible exposure to Ebola.
The patients with the highest level of possible exposure will be automatically quarantined for 21 days at a government-regulated facility. Those patients include anyone having direct contact with a person infected with Ebola while in Liberia, Guinea, or Sierra Leone. According to the Governor of New York those with a lower risk will be monitored for temperature and symptoms.
The CDC permits individual states to exceed federal guidelines in protecting the general public in individual states.
It was reported on October 28, 2014, that a doctor from the Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering at Drexel University, with an extensive background in analyzing risk of transmitting biological pathogens, authored a recently published study, “On the Quarantine Period for the Ebola Virus.” The doctor has concluded that a 21-day quarantine period for Ebola may result in the release of individuals who still have up to a 12 percent risk of having the disease.
Challenging the scientific basis for the WHO and CDC recommendation of 21 days, the study concludes 31 days may be required to have a 95 percent certainty a person has not contracted Ebola. “While the 21-day quarantine value currently used may have arose from reasonable interpretation of early outbreak data, this work suggests a reconsideration is in order and that 21 days may not be sufficiently protective to public health,” the doctor concluded, suggesting the WHO recommendation was based on faulty data analysis.
The doctor criticizes the WHO for relying on potentially flawed data, noting “the precise origin of this assessment is unclear.” It appears the U.N. agency relied primarily on studies of the 1976 Zaire outbreak or the 2000 Uganda outbreak, “both of which reported (without detailed analysis) a maximum observed incubation of 21 days.”
As for the origin of the WHO’s current 21-day quarantine recommendation, the doctor cited a study the WHO published in September. It was based only on an analysis of data from the first nine months of the current Ebola outbreak in West Africa. It reported an average incubation period of 11.4 days with an upper 95th percentile of 21 days. The doctor’s analysis, however, was based on more recent data from the current West Africa outbreak, as well as a larger dataset of cases from the 1995 outbreak in the Congo that proved a quarantine of 21 days was too short. The 1995 data found 12 percent of the Ebola-exposed patients released developed the disease and became contagious sometime after 21 days.
The doctor stressed that analysis of the more extensive patient database set from the 1995 Congo outbreak suggests a quarantine time of 31 days is required to reach the upper 95th percentile of the Ebola incubation time distribution.
Millions of people are questioning whether Ebola in the U. S. is real, or a hoax. Why do some of the people that are being quarantined keep breaking the quarantine and go out in the public? Are they really victims, or are they crisis actors similar to actors that have been used in past questionable incidents like the Sandy Hook shooting?
The best way to fight Ebola is to take action yourself, by strengthening your immune system as much as you can. We don’t know what the government’s agenda is regarding Ebola, but so far their actions have shown that they don’t care about citizens, and will most likely not help you if you need it.
Examples of why quarantines must be mandatory for at least 21 days, and a person must be housed in a restricted facility, not at home:
Example No. 1 — On October 2, 2014, Texas health officials ordered four close family members of the Dallas Ebola patient to stay in their home, and they posted law enforcement outside to be sure. “They were non-compliant with requests to stay home,” according to a Dallas County judge when explaining the presence of officers.
The Texas state health commissioner said the unusual quarantine step with the four relatives was so health officials could do the necessary monitoring, including checking them for fevers twice a day over the next 21 days. None of the family members are showing any signs of fever or Ebola symptoms.
On October 3, 2014, the family of Ebola patient Thomas Duncan was placed under armed guard, quarantined in their home, following an attempt to breach the restrictions and leave the apartment building.
On October 1 the family was ordered by state health officials to stay in their apartment for the 21-day Ebola incubation period. However, the family did not want to comply.
“Who wants to be locked up?” Mr. Duncan’s fiance said. “I’m not sick with Ebola,” she said during an interview, adding that she wanted “for [health officials] to leave me alone, leave my kids alone.” Since the 21-day incubation period hasn’t expired yet, she doesn’t know whether she or her kids have Ebola or not.
According to reports, the family are due to be moved from the apartment so it can be decontaminated, a process that has still not been carried out, several days after the diagnosis was made. In addition, the fiance said there are still towels and sheets in the apartment that were used by Duncan while he was there.
Example No. 2 — On October 13, 2014, an NBC News crew was ordered under mandatory quarantine for possible Ebola infection after the network’s chief medical correspondent was allegedly spotted on a food run to a New Jersey restaurant, according to a report.
Dr. Nancy Snyderman and her crew had agreed to a voluntary quarantine when they returned to the United States from West Africa last week following their exposure to a cameraman who contracted the deadly virus. This is the same doctor who made headlines back in 2010 during the swine flu scare when she told MSNBC viewers, “just get your damn vaccine,” but she didn’t show such concerns for public health when she was caught violating an Ebola quarantine in order to pick up her favorite soup.
Snyderman, who lives in Princeton, NJ, was spotted outside the Peasant Grill in nearby Hopewell last week according to reports. Snyderman, who was wearing sunglasses and had her long hair pulled back, waited while a man went inside the eatery to pick up a takeout order, it was reported.
A spokeswoman for the New Jersey Department of Health said there was no need to decontaminate the restaurant or warn anyone who was inside because the CDC says people without Ebola symptoms aren’t contagious. In reality, people with Ebola are contagious before they start showing symptoms.
On March 12, 2015, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the veteran TV-news medical correspondent who was caught violating the terms of a self-imposed quarantine after being potentially exposed to the Ebola virus in 2014, said she would leave her job at NBC News. “Covering the Ebola epidemic last fall in Liberia, and then becoming part of the story upon my return to the U.S., contributed to my decision that now is the time to return to academic medicine,” Snyderman said in a statement provided by NBC News. She indicated she would be moving to “a faculty position at a major U.S. medical school” and would work “to communicate medicine and science to our viewers and citizens, especially in times of crisis.”
Upon returning to “Today” after her break following the Ebola incident, Snyderman told Matt Lauer that “good people can make mistakes . . . I stepped outside the boundaries of what I promised to do and what the public expected of me, and for that I’m sorry.”
Her departure comes as the result of a mutual decision between the journalist and NBC News executives, according to a person familiar with the matter. This person characterized the relationship between Snyderman and NBC News as having grown strained since her return to the network.
Example No. 3 — On October 25, 2014, a nurse who was being quarantined at a New Jersey hospital after working with Ebola patients in Sierra Leone criticized her treatment as an overreaction after an initial test found that she did not have the virus.
Kaci Hickox described being held in isolation for about seven hours at Newark Liberty International Airport yesterday, left alone for long stretches, and given only a granola bar when she said she was hungry. Being “left alone for long stretches,” she’s an adult, not a child in a daycare center. If all she got was a granola bar when she said she was hungry, that is definitely wrong.
The CDC calls for self-monitoring for travelers who have had contact with Ebola patients, but not for isolation, because a patient is not believed to be contagious until symptoms appear. But CDC officials said that states had the right to go beyond the recommendations. It’s been known since 2000 that Ebola-infected people with no symptoms are contagious.
The PCR test for Ebola produces a disconcerting amount of false negatives the first time it is administered, and must be administered multiple times before a negative reading can be believed.
Ebola health care worker Kaci Hickox, who was released from quarantine with the support of the White House, is a CDC employee, records reveal. The lawyer who helped earn her release is a recent White House state dinner guest.
On October 27, 2014, Hickox was released from Ebola quarantine in Newark, N.J., after the White House pressured New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to release the nurse that was working in Sierra Leone with Doctors Without Borders. Hickox’s case for release was also bolstered by New York civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, who took on Hickox’s case.
“I feel like my basic human rights have been violated,” Hickox said before she was evaluated by CDC and transported back to her home in Maine. Why is she allowed to violate the basic human rights of more than 300 million Americans? Here’s an overlooked factor that could have contributed to her White House-backed release: Hickox is an official CDC Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) officer who performed work for the CDC in recent months. Hickox was a Class of 2012 member of CDC’s two-year EIS officer training program. Epidemic Intelligence Service??? Do they carry guns?
On October 29, 2014, Kaci Hickox, who remains symptom-free after spending three days in a New Jersey isolation tent after flying home from Ebola-stricken West Africa, remains under quarantine at home in Maine, but for only another day, she said in an interview. “I won’t be ‘bullied by politicians.'” Another healthcare worker with no regard for her fellow Americans!
“I don’t plan on sticking to the guidelines. I remain appalled by these home quarantine policies that have been forced upon me, even though I am in perfectly good health and feeling strong and have been this entire time completely symptom free,” said Hickox, who wouldn’t emerge from Maine’s 21-day voluntary quarantine until November 10. As an Ebola healthcare worker, is she unaware of the fact that sometimes Ebola symptoms don’t show up for 21 days?
She plans to pursue legal action if Maine forces her into continued isolation. “If the restrictions placed on me by the state of Maine are not lifted by Thursday morning, I will go to court to fight for my freedom.” And the opportunity to potentially expose people to Ebola. She plans to return to Africa to help Ebola patients. “My work in Sierra Leone for four weeks was amazing and I feel privileged to have been able to fight this battle and I do plan on going back. It’s not just will I, it’s more of a when.” If she goes back to West Africa, and returns to another quarantine situation, will she again threaten to sue to get out of the quarantine?
The current Ebola outbreak in West Africa has a high mortality rate among healthcare workers, which has never happened before. Many of the healthcare workers that survived Ebola say they don’t know how they got Ebola. A person infected with Ebola can remain symptom free for up to 21 days, so Ms. Hickox has no idea if she has Ebola or not. Perhaps she should be prosecuted for recklessly endangering public health.
On October 30, 2014, showing no regard for the health of the public, Kaci Hickox defied Maine’s mandatory Ebola quarantine and went for a bike ride with her boyfriend. Miss Hickox broke her quarantine at 9am and took an ATV trail behind her home for the hour-long ride. A state trooper who had been stationed outside the house followed her in a police cruiser.
On October 31, 2014, a Maine judge rejected the state’s bid to limit her movements as a medical worker who has treated Ebola patients, which means Kaci Hickox is now free to travel unrestricted.
Judge Charles C. LaVerdiere ruled Hickox must continue daily monitoring and coordinate travel with state health officials to ensure continuity of monitoring. According to the judge, there’s no need to restrict her movements because she’s not infectious since she’s showing no symptoms. The judge then thanked Hickox for her service in Africa and acknowledged the gravity of restricting someone’s constitutional rights without solid science to back it up. “The court is fully aware of the misconceptions, misinformation, bad science and bad information being spread from shore to shore in our country with respect to Ebola,” he wrote. “The court is fully aware that people are acting out of fear and that this fear is not entirely rational.” When the judge says “bad science,” is he referring to the World Health Organization that says the incubation period for Ebola is 2 – 21 days, and can even be up to 42 days? When the judge says, “gravity of restricting someone’s constitutional rights,” is he unaware that the government can quarantine someone if they think they have Ebola? Why does he have no regard for the safety of the general public? Is the judge a medical expert in Ebola, or just incompetent?
On October 31, 2014, the Maine CDC released information that the roommate of Kaci Hickox, while in West Africa has displayed signs of Ebola. According to the CDC, “The respondents roommate in Africa became infected without knowing how she became infected with Ebola. (Any potential risk to respondent from that incident has passed).” This is one of 35 points the CDC made while filing a verified petition for public health order with the state on October 30.
Example No. 4 — On October 29, 2014, it was revealed that New York City’s first Ebola patient initially lied to authorities about his travels around the city following his return from treating disease victims in Africa, according to law-enforcement sources. The doctor initially told officials he isolated himself in his Harlem apartment without admitting he rode the subways, dined out and went bowling, until cops looked at his MetroCard. “He told the authorities that he self-quarantined. Detectives then reviewed his credit-card statement and MetroCard and found that he went over here, over there, up and down and all around,” a source said.
Some doctor. He performs humanitarian work by treating people that are sick with a devastating disease, then returns to his own country and shows no regard for the health of his fellow Americans!
The potential downside to quarantines is a concern —
The official CDC website details ‘Specific Laws and Regulations Governing the Control of Communicable Diseases’, under which even healthy citizens who show no symptoms of Ebola whatsoever would be forcibly quarantined at the behest of medical authorities. “Quarantine is used to separate and restrict the movement of well persons who may have been exposed to a communicable disease to see if they become ill. These people may have been exposed to a disease and do not know it, or they may have the disease but do not show symptoms,” states the CDC.
Such stringent regulations have led to fears that an outbreak of a dangerous communicable disease in the United States would lead to massive abuse of power by the federal government and the imposition of martial law.
Based on information contained in this article, effective Ebola quarantine guidelines are as follows —
1. Since the purpose of a quarantine is to protect the public by preventing the spread of a dangerous disease, the quarantine period should only last as long as it takes to determine a person does not have Ebola. If medical testing is conducted, multiple PCR tests must be done to achieve a confirmed diagnosis of Ebola, which could take a week or more. If medical testing is not used, the quarantine period would last 31 days, from the time the person left the Ebola-infected West African country, in case the person didn’t immediately return to the United States from West Africa.
2. The quarantine must be strictly enforced when dealing with Ebola.
3. The quarantine must take place in a facility where the people will be constantly monitored by medical personnel, because people can’t be trusted to self-quarantine themselves at home.
4. People in quarantine need to be segregated from other quarantined people to prevent the spread of the disease.
5. Citizens should be advised that if they want to avoid a quarantine and are traveling to an Ebola-infected West African country, there will need to be 31 days on their passports between the time they left West Africa and the time they are returning to the United States.
6. Noncitizens trying to enter the United States should be denied entry if their passport shows they were in an Ebola-infected West African country within the last 31 days.
THE U.S. ARMY TO THE RESCUE!
Why would soldiers be sent to try and stop a virus? Are they supposed to shoot the virus if they see it?
On September 15, 2014, sources from within the Department of Defense questioned why the Obama administration is implementing a military response to the Ebola epidemic when USAID and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are already involved in relief efforts. “We don’t need to be taking planners away from the CT [counterterrorism] mission, and that is what is going on,” the Defense Department source said.
On September 16, 2014, Obama announced plans to send 3,000 troops to Liberia to help fight the Ebola virus.
It is understood the U. S. military will oversee building new treatment centers and help train medical staff. U. S. officials said the aim of the country’s anti-Ebola initiative is to: train up to 500 healthcare workers a week; construct 17 healthcare facilities, each with about 100 beds; establish a joint command based in Monrovia, Liberia, to co-ordinate between U. S. and international relief efforts; distribute home healthcare kits to thousands of households; and, conduct a home and community-based campaign to train local people in how to handle patients.
“We should see all of West Africa now as one big outbreak,” said the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “It’s very clear we have to deal with all the areas with Ebola.”
In an interview on September 17, 2014, a former deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, who also spent 13 years in the Delta Force, with two years as its commander, said, “I believe it is a total misuse of the U. S. military’s capabilities at a time when the U. S. military is taking drastic budget cuts, it is extraordinarily thin and it is being recommitted to conflict in Iraq. I object to this quite strongly.”
He emphasized the military is overburdened. “This is a terrible misuse of the U. S. military, and it comes at a terrible time when not only is the military really stretched thin, such that the U. S. military cannot take on another mission, it comes at a time when we are reducing the military’s funding and the military’s numbers,” he said.
He also questioned why the first line of defense would not be the United Nations peacekeepers. “If military are required to combat the Ebola outbreak in Liberia, then the first troops that should be involved are the 6,000 United Nations peacekeeping forces that are already in the country,” he said.
Last week, the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping said that the U.N. mission there “is not a public health operation” and the peacekeepers stationed there are not trained to combat the Ebola epidemic.
On September 17, 2014, as he announced he was sending military troops to fight Ebola in West Africa, Obama said that if the outbreak is not stopped now, hundreds of thousands of people may become infected, “with profound political and economic and security implications for all of us. This is an epidemic that is not just a threat to regional security. It’s a potential threat to global security, if these countries break down, if their economies break down, if people panic. That has profound effects on all of us, even if we are not directly contracting the disease,” Obama added.
At a Congressional hearing on Ebola on September 17, 2014, government health workers were unable to answer specific questions about Obama’s decision to deploy 3,000 U. S. troops to Liberia to combat the disease. None of the government health witnesses testifying were able to answer basic questions, including how many physicians and nurses would be among the 3,000 troops allocated, or what type of protective equipment and training would be employed to prevent infection. The witnesses explained the State Department was in charge of the military mission, not the Pentagon.
“Who do we call when there is a problem with the troops in Liberia?” asked Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), a physician and a guest on the committee. “You call USAID,” replied the assistant administrator for the U. S. Agency for International Development, USAID. The administrator explained that the situation in Liberia is a medical emergency, and USAID is directing the Obama administration’s response in West Africa. USAID reports to the State Department, not to the Department of Defense. She explained the goal of the military mission is to establish a Joint Force Command headquartered in Liberia to serve as a regional command for U. S. military activities in the region. The plan is also to establish an Ebola “training boot camp” to train up to 500 local health care workers weekly and to set up a 25-bed hospital in Liberia open to all health care aid workers in West Africa who contract the disease.
The director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Disease at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, explained the CDC has prepared material regarding what medical personnel dispatched to West Africa to combat Ebola need to know before they arrive in the disease hot zone. In her prepared opening statement, the director tried to minimize the risk presented by the current outbreak, stressing Ebola is “not a significant health threat to the United States.”
According to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (a BB, and CFR), the State Department is run by the Council on Foreign Relations, not the federal government. This is a big red flag and could explain why this Ebola outbreak is so different from the more than 25 other Ebola outbreaks that have occurred since Ebola was first identified in 1976.
In yet another Obama administration reversal adding to the confusion surrounding the mission of U. S. troops in West Africa, Defense Department officials said General David M. Rodriguez misspoke on October 7, 2014, when he said that U.S. troops would be in direct contact with Ebola patients.
Rodriguez, commander of U. S. African Command, said at a Pentagon news conference that teams of U. S. soldiers will work alongside Liberian troops and will staff mobile medical labs that will test people for Ebola. Defense officials, however, now insist U. S. military lab technicians will only be testing specimen samples from suspected Ebola victims. But earlier Rodriguez had said: “These are the U.S. troops that will be involved testing directly people in Liberia suspected of having the disease.”
Rodriguez had told reporters the U. S. military had put “two additional mobile medical labs” in operation last week in Liberia, “significantly increasing our capacity for rapidly diagnosing Ebola.” The general said the mobile labs “are for testing people, and some of the people tested will have Ebola.” He quickly added that “the U. S. troops staffing these labs are trained at the highest level of nuclear, biological and chemical readiness, so they are all trained to operate in nuclear, biological threat and chemical threat environments.” Rodriguez said the soldiers “will be tested continuously for symptoms of Ebola.”
On October 17, 2014, it was reported that U. S. soldiers preparing for deployment to West Africa are given just four hours of Ebola-related training before leaving to combat the epidemic. The first 500 soldiers to arrive have been holing up in Liberian hotels and government facilities while the military builds longer-term infrastructure on the ground.
Mobile Training Teams from the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), based out of Fort Detrick, have been tasked with instructing soldiers on Ebola protocols. A team of two can train as many as 50 personnel over that four-hour time frame, according to USAMRIID. The training includes hands-on instruction on how to put on, remove, and decontaminate personal protective equipment, followed by a practical test to ensure that soldiers understand the procedures. “All training is tiered to the level of risk each person may encounter,” a USAMRIID spokeswoman said.
Soldiers based in Liberia have their temperature measured several times per day, and are not permitted to shake hands. They are also required to frequently wash their hands with a chlorine solution. Some locations even employ chlorine mats that service members are required to wipe their feet on in order to enter.
According to the military, they were relying on CDC guidelines to protect their soldiers. But CDC guidelines have proven to be flawed. When questioned by reporters about possible flaws with the CDC’s guidelines, both Major General Williams and U. S. Ambassador to Liberia Debra Malac said they were sticking by those protocols. “Our embassy has been open and operating in this Ebola environment for six months. We have been following very carefully the CDC guidance and advice from day one, and we have… [felt no] need to have to make a change or deviate from those guidelines that have been or very successful,” Malac said.
Troops from the 101st Airborne Division leading the military response to Ebola in West Africa will only need gloves and masks to protect themselves from the deadly virus, Gen. David Rodriguez said at a Pentagon briefing on October 19, 2014. “They don’t need the whole suit – as such – because they’re not going to be in contact with any of the people,” the commander of U. S. troops in Africa said.
Soldiers from the 101st Airborne, a trained air assault unit, will primarily be building hospitals, ultimately leading what could be a contingent of 4,000 American service members. They’ll be housed either in tent cities at military airfields or in Liberian Ministry of Defense facilities, Rodriguez said.
The health of the soldiers will be monitored through surveys and taking their temperature on their way in and out of camps. If a service member does get sick, Rodriguez said they will be flown home immediately for treatment.
The U. S. Defense Department will only have the capability to fly four service members out of Africa per week should they contract the deadly Ebola virus, a Major General testified before a Congressional hearing on October 24, 2014, regarding the military’s response to the epidemic. Major General James Lariviere told North Carolina Congressman Patrick McHenry that the U. S. plans to have “in the vicinity of 3,000” troops in Africa by the end of the year.
In the event that soldiers begin contracting the virus, Major General Lariviere admitted the military currently only has one plane capable of transporting symptomatic patients back to the U. S. for treatment. The Defense Department is working on procuring additional aircraft, but wouldn’t be ready to move more soldiers out of Africa until January.
On October 27, 2014, it was reported that U. S. soldiers returning from Ebola-struck Liberia are not under strict quarantine at an Army outpost in Vicenza, Italy, despite media reports to the contrary, according to a high-level source. News articles stating that Italian military police in full hazmat suits are escorting U. S. soldiers arriving from Liberia into 21-day isolation at Caserma Ederle, a small outpost in Vicenza with a healthcare facility equivalent to a nurse’s station, are inaccurate, according to the source. It did appear strange the Army would use Caserma Ederle as a quarantine facility for Ebola considering the outpost allows family members to accompany soldiers assigned to the station.
The Vicenza Health Center, which serves soldiers at Caserma Ederle, doesn’t even have an emergency room and relies on a local Italian hospital, San Bortolo, for emergency care, meaning that Caserma Ederle is less equipped to deal with an Ebola outbreak than most major hospitals. “The Health Center is capable of treating acute minor illnesses, lacerations, follow-up screening after discharge from the local Italian hospital,” a Defense Department web site states. So, in other words, the Army is claiming that a small outpost with a nurse’s station is serving as a quarantine facility for a dangerous disease.
On October 27, 2014, a major general testified before Congress that if any of the U. S. soldiers working in the Ebola-infected West African countries get Ebola, the Army will be able to transport four soldiers a week, one at a time, out of the area back to the U.S. for treatment. When asked if he thought that was sufficient, the general said based on the current number of Ebola patients the United States has, it would be sufficient, but they don’t really know.
The general was then asked why soldiers would only be quarantined for 10 days before releasing them to bring them back to the United States. He replied that, “The 21 day period for monitoring has to take place outside the infection zone. For us that would be in the United States. . . In order to reduce their risk commanders will be allowed to remove their personnel from whatever jobs they were doing for up to 10 days prior to departure from Liberia. The general was asked why the soldiers can’t just be quarantined in the country of infection, since we are sending soldiers over there that could build a quarantine unit. The general replied, “Ma’am, I’ll defer to the doctors whose personnel tell us that to be absolutely certain that everybody is Ebola free it has to be outside the infection zone. For all intents and purposes, the entire country of Liberia is an infection zone.”
Who are the soldiers that are being sent to the Ebola zone? It is the 101st Airborne Division. This is an elite fighting division. Why would they be sent on a medical mission? In 2013, the Bilderberg Group said that Africa was one of their areas of special interest. AFRICOM, which was created in 2007, is responsible for U.S. military operations and military relations with 53 of the 54 African nations, excluding Egypt, which is within the area of responsibility of the United States Central Command.
The decision to put a dozen American soldiers returning from Liberia into quarantine for Ebola at their base near Venice rather than in the United States sparked controversy in Italy on October 29, 2014. “They shouldn’t have been sent here, they should do their quarantine for Ebola at home,” said the president of the region’s assembly, insisting “it would have been more respectful” of the United States to have “thought about the risks posed to local citizens”.
Why didn’t they quarantine the soldiers on a Navy medical ship instead?
On January 13, 2015, an Army soldier that had just returned from Ebola-struck West Africa was found dead in a front yard, according to multiple sources.
The soldier, who was discovered in a pool of vomit, was supposed to be under quarantine and Killeen, Texas, police said the cause of death is currently unknown. Ft. Hood officials said the soldier was “self-monitoring himself twice-a-day” while on “emergency leave” in lieu of quarantine. A HAZMAT team was dispatched to where his body was found.
On January 14, 2015, officials identified the Fort Hood soldier found dead in Killeen, Texas on January 13, who had recently deployed to Liberia. Officials said he tested negative for Ebola after two separate tests.
The U.S. military sent approximately 3,000 troops to West Africa to build Ebola treatment centers. As the outbreak fades in Liberia, it has become clear that the disease had already drastically subsided before the first American centers were completed. Several of the U.S.-built units haven’t seen a single patient infected with Ebola.
It now appears that the alarming epidemiological predictions that in large part prompted the U.S. aid effort here were far too bleak. Although future flare-ups of the disease are possible, the near-empty Ebola centers tell the story of an aggressive American military and civilian response that occurred too late to help the bulk of the more than 8,300 Liberians who became infected. By mid-January 2015, even as international aid organizations built yet more Ebola centers, there was an average of less than one new case reported in Liberia per day.
“If they had been built when we needed them, it wouldn’t have been too much,” said the Liberian government’s chairman for Ebola case management. “But they were too late.”
It was impossible to predict the decline in the Ebola caseload last September, when the U.S. CDC suggested a worst-case scenario of 1.4 million victims in West Africa. At that point, the American military’s logistical and engineering prowess appeared to be urgently needed — even if critics said the assistance was slow to arrive. “With that kind of dire prediction from the CDC, and not having seen anything like this before, we had to try everything at our disposal,” said the top USAID official in Liberia. U.S. officials reject the suggestion that resources were misallocated.
In reality, the CDC prediction made on September 23, 2014, was that there could be as many as 21,000 reported and unreported cases in just Liberia and Sierra Leone as soon as September 30, 2014. Based on that number, the CDC estimated those two countries could have 550,000 cases by late January, but 1.4 million when corrected for underreporting, without additional interventions or changes in community behavior. Yet, on September 23, 2014, there were just 5,843 confirmed cases of Ebola in all of West Africa. That means that from September 23, 2014, to September 30, 2014, the CDC expected more than 15,000 new reported and unreported cases of Ebola to appear. The CDC never said how they estimated the number of unreported cases. What fantasy world do these CDC scientists live in?
Also on September 23, 2014, the WHO estimated there could be as many as 21,000 Ebola cases in six weeks if efforts to stop the virus weren’t increased.
Why didn’t the “CDC scientists” make their prediction on actual confirmed cases instead of imaginary, unreported cases that have yet to be reflected in the confirmed cases? Didn’t any other government officials question the CDC’s estimate when the WHO estimate was published showing that the WHO estimated the CDC’s number of cases that would occur in one week would take six weeks instead?
In Monrovia, the heart of the outbreak, there was a shortage of bed space at treatment centers for months. The international community response, with a massive construction and assistance campaign, turned out to be far in excess of what was necessary. There are now seven Ebola treatment centers in greater Monrovia. Most of them were completed after the epidemic began to abate. By the time the American-built treatment unit opened in November, the country was down to less than 100 cases per week, from a peak of more than 300. By December, the number had dropped to fewer than 30 cases per week. Surplus tents now store excess supplies: mattresses, food and medicine for patients who never arrived. There are so few patients and so many available beds that a USAID-funded Ebola center, opened in October, will soon close its doors. Three other centers will be shuttered at least temporarily.
Paradoxically, isolation centers are still being built, mostly by UNICEF. “It just makes no sense,” said the head of the mission for the Doctors Without Borders aid group in Liberia. “Halting construction now would cause much bigger problems for the community. They’ve agreed to them, they’ve supported them, and they’re employed there,” said UNICEF’s country director.
On February 5, 2015, it was reported that the U. S. military mission to fight Ebola in Liberia will be significantly reduced in March, as infection rates there fall to near zero. Approximately 3,000 troops were deployed to the West African country in December 2014, but currently there are approximately 1,300 troops there. The number of troops will continue to decline through March until a force of about 100 remain for at least the near term.
During the five months the troops were in West Africa building clinics, providing medical training and testing for the presence of Ebola in blood and swab samples, there were no cases of viral infection among service-members, a major concern when Obama sent the military in to fight the disease.
It remains unclear, however, how much of a direct role the more than $900 million troop deployment played in the decline of a disease that killed more than 3,700 people in Liberia. Illness rates began to fall precipitously last November, weeks before U. S. troops completed core missions of building clinics and training staff. The 10 Ebola treatment units built by U. S. forces, along with eight others in Liberia raised with money from the U. S. and other nations, are nearly empty as new Ebola cases have fallen to fewer than one per day. The Liberian government has chosen to shutter or repurpose four clinics, including one that was built with U. S. money, the WHO said.
According to the Liberian defense minister, the presence of U .S. troops had a galvanizing effect on the Ebola response among Liberians. “The American presence was seen in probably more than half the country on a daily basis,” he said. “(It) reinforced the need for everyone to take the situation and their response to Ebola very serious.”
“I will call it a game changer in the way that it helped trigger a bigger response from the international community,” said a Doctors Without Borders official. He said the mere presence of American troops dissuaded average Liberians from blaming the deaths on a government conspiracy or witchcraft. “You cannot say that the impact the Americans made was a game changer with respect to the epidemic itself and the direction of infection rates,” he added.
The U. S. military also assisted with setting up laboratories for testing blood and swab samples for the presence of Ebola, and expediting diagnosis of the disease. A USAID official emphasized that the clinic training of more than 1,500 Liberians by military troops would be a lasting investment in Liberia’s severely damaged health care system. “I think those skills are going to stay behind and be quite useful should there ever be another outbreak of Ebola,” he said. “Hopefully, there won’t be a next time. But should there be a next time, at least they’re not starting from zero.”
Are U.S. Soldiers Being Sent to West Africa Only to Fight Ebola?
Obama’s announcement of humanitarian aid for the Ebola disaster came in the form of a major increase of military personnel in the region, declaring an estimated 3,000 U.S. forces will join the U.S. Africa Command, or Africom. The stated goal of those forces, according to a White House release, is to establish a Joint Force Command headquartered in Monrovia, Liberia, to “provide regional command and control support … and facilitate coordination with U.S. government and international relief efforts.”
While the personnel sent to Africa will undoubtedly aid in containing the Ebola outbreak, there may be ulterior motives for their deployment.
In August, the World Bank documented economic growth in resource-rich Sub-Saharan Africa rose to 4.7 percent in 2013 and is estimated to burst to 5.2 percent by the end of 2014. The rise has been aided by international investment in natural resources and infrastructure, the World Bank noted.
It was also reported that in recent years, China “has arguably become the most formidable of the foreign players in Africa,” surpassing the U.S. as Africa’s largest trading partner in 2009. Chinese trade with African countries was nearly double that of the U.S. in 2013, with China doing $200 billion in business that year compared to about $110 billion between Africa and the U.S.
In August, former president Bill Clinton (a BB, CFR, TC) noted the possibilities for U. S. growth in Africa during a discussion with the chief executives of Wal-Mart (a CFR corp), General Electric (a CFR corp), Dow, the Nigeria-based industrial conglomerate Dangote Group and the South African investment holding company Shanduka Group. “It strikes me that we’ve only barely scratched the surface of what we could and should be doing there and that we’re missing the boat,” Clinton said. “We should understand this is a massive opportunity for American business.”
The Obama administration has sought to expand U. S. influence in African nations, and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker (a CFR) “more than doubled the size of her department’s presence in Africa, bringing Commerce’s African offices to a total of eight countries.
Africom’s official mission statement says the military arm, “in concert with interagency and international partners, builds defense capabilities, responds to crisis, and deters and defeats transnational threats in order to advance U. S. national interests and promote regional security, stability, and prosperity.” However, at an Africom conference held on February 18, 2008, Vice Admiral Robert Moeller stated that Africom may have another agenda, and that the mission was also aimed at preserving “the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market.” In a 2010 opinion piece, the Admiral wrote “Let there be no mistake. Africom’s job is to protect American lives and promote American interests.”
Prior to the Ebola outbreak, Africom only had approximately 2,000 assigned personnel, with the command’s headquarters located in Stuttgart, Germany. Obama’s Ebola directive now sends more than that number, 3,000, to a base in Africa, specifically establishing a new Joint Force Command in Monrovia, Liberia, working with international partners.
A long-term goal of Africom was always to establish a major base inside Africa. The expansion of Africom’s missions were also seen earlier in 2012 when the U. S. sent 100 Special Forces purportedly to hunt for infamous war criminal James Kony.
Interestingly, a recent survey of attitudes of African nations showed that only a crisis like Ebola could help persuade skeptical countries on the continent to accept an increased Africom presence.
One striking aspect of this new concern of the U. S. President for the situation in Liberia and other west African states where alleged surges of Ebola are being claimed is the presence of oil, huge volumes of untapped oil. The offshore coast of Liberia and east African ‘Ebola zones’ conveniently map with the presence of vast untapped oil and gas resources.
The issue of oil in west Africa, notably in the waters of the Gulf of Guinea have become increasingly strategic both to China, who is roaming the world in search of future secure oil import sources, and the United States, whose oil geo-politics was summed up in a quip by then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (a CFR, BB, TC) in the 1970’s: ‘If you control the oil, you control entire nations.’
The Obama Administration and Pentagon policy has continued that of George W. Bush, who created the U. S. military Africa Command, or AFRICOM, in 2008 to battle the rapidly-growing Chinese economic presence in Africa’s potential oil-rich countries. West Africa is a rapidly-emerging oil treasure, barely tapped to date. A U. S. Department of Energy study projected that African oil production would rise 91 percent between 2002 and 2025, much from the region of the present Ebola alarm.
Chinese oil companies are all over Africa and increasingly active in west Africa, especially Angola, Sudan and Guinea, the later in the epicenter of Obama’s new War on Ebola troop deployment.
WORKING HARD ON POTENTIAL EBOLA TREATMENTS —
We frequently hear about how pharmaceutical companies, wealthy foundations, and even governments are teaming up to produce vaccines to fight the current outbreak of Ebola, even though the vaccines won’t be ready for distribution until after the outbreak has ended. The important question to answer, and the only question that matters, is, who will benefit most from any vaccines that are developed? Will the vaccines be in the best interests of curing the Ebola patients, or curing the pharmaceutical companies bottom lines?
Suggesting that the human immune system is incapable of addressing Ebola without chemical assistance is also a complete lie. During the Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918, more than 80 percent of the people treated with allopathic (traditional medicine) drugs died. Yet, 80 percent of the people who took natural remedies survived. For example, the seeds of the African bitter kola tree have properties that can kill the Ebola virus. Also coffee, fermented soy, homeopathic spider venom and vitamin C, may all hold promise as anti-Ebola virus therapies, despite the common belief that nothing can stop this lethal virus from spreading uncontrollably worldwide.
Squashing the innate abilities of the human immune system to heal, and promoting chemicals instead, is simply another attempt to propagate the need for vaccines. A Canadian pharmaceutical company called Tekmira has been at work for the past few years on an Ebola treatment called TKM-Ebola. Diseases like Ebola often have difficulty attracting investment, as pharmaceutical companies rarely see a large payday in tackling a disease that has rare outbreaks and affects a low-income area of the world.
But TKM-Ebola has attracted the interest of the government. The Defense Department awarded it a contract for $140 million in 2010, after the vaccine proved completely effective in treating non-human primates. The government’s interest in vaccinating against Ebola is largely rooted in preventing bioterrorism attacks, where the disease could be used a weapon.
Ebola was first discovered in 1976. Yet in the 38 years since, there has been no treatment developed, or vaccine created to fight the disease. A big reason there hasn’t been much testing on this is because treating poor people in Africa just isn’t very profitable for the drug companies. “These outbreaks affect the poorest communities on the planet. Although they do create incredible upheaval, they are relatively rare events,” said a U.S. medical researcher who works on Ebola and other infectious diseases. “So if you look at the interest of pharmaceutical companies, there is not huge enthusiasm to take an Ebola drug through phase one, two, and three of a trial and make an Ebola vaccine that maybe a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people will use.”
While some may question why a medical researcher would make such a statement, Big Pharma execs more or less confirm the claims. In 2013, Bayer’s CEO claimed directly that they make drugs for rich people who can afford it. Bayer (a BB corp) Chief Executive Officer Marijn Dekkers called the compulsory license “essentially theft.” On December 3, 2013, Dekkers said, “We did not develop this medicine for Indians. We developed it for western patients who can afford it.”
Yet, in 1950, George Merck, the former President of Merck (a CFR corp) said, “We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been.” But at the same time, the developer of the Merck vaccine program was busy putting cancer viruses into vaccines, particularly the polio vaccine given in the 1950’s.
Why are there suddently thousands of Ebola victims and thousands of deaths, when in the 38-year history of this disease, the largest outbreak had 412 victims? Let’s follow the money. A recent newspaper article had this headline: “NIH to launch early Ebola vaccine trial in September.” What does that mean? It means this: Until the current outbreak of Ebola, many in the industry said there was not a great need for an Ebola vaccine, because the virus only caused 10-100 infections per year. But that’s all changed.
According to the assistant dean at the Texas A&M School of Public Health, “The current outbreak has somewhat changed our thinking.” More people now think the world needs an Ebola vaccine. Why? Because there’s going to be a call to vaccinate entire populations of nations or to vaccinate health workers in hospitals and clinics to protect them from getting and spreading the virus. A sign that this might be the goal is the fact that the FDA is making exceptions to its usually stringent rules for drug development in evaluating treatments for Ebola. And as a result, they’re speeding forward with a stage I trial with a man-made antibody treatment.
On October 24, 2014, the WHO said they plan on mass vaccinations in West Africa beginning in June 2015, although it could be sooner. Does this mean mandatory vaccinations? Will the very poor West African countries pay for all the vaccines? The WHO is an agency of the UN. Will the UN make its member nations, the rich western nations of course, pay for the vaccines instead?
Perhaps vaccines weren’t created because of liability issues, but now the U. S. government and the United Nations have given themselves complete legal protection – diplomatic immunity – through the activation of Project BioShield, the execution of U. S. executive order 13295 and by declaring the fake 2014 Ebola outbreak an “international health crisis” and “a threat to world peace and security.” They both did so in order to be fully protected against any claims for losses by citizens anywhere in the world who will become victims of the legalized testing of dangerous and even deadly vaccines, allegedly to stop the Ebola outbreak from expanding.
As the U. S. government and the UN have successfully paved the road for themselves to be able to legally inject anyone with anything – in the name of fighting Ebola and to safeguard national health and security – the corporate big pharma leeches feel that the time is right now for them too to claim immunity against claims for losses as they will produce and supply dangerous and deadly Ebola vaccines to be used by governments, organizations and the United Nations.
Once even the pharma sector has been provided with diplomatic immunity there really is no stopping a massive slaughter through legalized experimentation with tainted, spiked and laced vaccines.
The WHO has been discussing the use of unapproved drugs as a way of getting a handle on an outbreak in Africa that has already cost more than 1,400 lives. A panel of medical experts convened by the WHO earlier this month determined it was “ethical” to provide experimental treatments, given the scale of the epidemic.
Liberia received a shipment of ZMapp on August 13 from the United States. Two U. S. citizens received ZMapp and have since been declared cured. However, a Liberian doctor treated with ZMapp has died. Two other health workers in Liberia that received the serum are still in treatment and there were “signs of hope.” The very small available stocks of ZMapp, which has never been through clinical trials on humans, have now been used up, according to the lab that produces it.
Tokyo said on August 25, 2014, it was ready to offer an experimental drug developed by a Japanese company to help stem the global tide of Ebola. Avigan, which is taken in tablet form, was approved as an anti-influenza drug in Japan in March and is currently in clinical tests in the United States.
On September 1, 2014, it was reported that a candidate Ebola vaccine is to be given to healthy volunteers in the UK, The Gambia and Mali from as early as September, as part of a series of safety trials of potential vaccines aimed at preventing the disease. Human trials of this candidate vaccine, being co-developed by the U. S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and GlaxoSmithKline (a CFR corp), are to be accelerated.
The phase 1 trials will begin as soon as they receive ethical and regulatory approvals, which will be considered on an expedited basis. If approvals are granted, the UK research teams could start vaccinating volunteers from mid-September. The consortium’s funding will also enable GSK to begin manufacturing up to approximately 10,000 additional doses of the vaccine at the same time as the initial clinical trials, so that if the trials are successful, stocks could be made available immediately by GSK to the WHO to create an emergency immunization programme for high risk communities.
The candidate vaccine is against the Zaire species of Ebola, which is the one circulating in West Africa, and uses a single Ebola virus protein to generate an immune response. As it does not contain infectious virus material, it cannot cause a person who is vaccinated to become infected with Ebola. Pre-clinical research by the NIH and Okairos, a biotechnology company acquired last year by GSK, has indicated that it provides promising protection in non-human primates exposed to Ebola without significant adverse effects.
Safety trials with small groups of healthy volunteers are now required to ensure that the vaccine does not cause unforeseen side effects, and that it generates a good immune response to Ebola in humans, before it can be rolled out to larger at-risk populations, even on an experimental basis. To accelerate these trials, the NIH has agreed to provide the NIAID/GSK Ebola vaccine for safety studies led by the Oxford team, which will run in parallel to its own. Oxford’s Jenner Institute has extensive experience of clinical trials of similar vaccines.
The Oxford study will involve 60 volunteers, while those in The Gambia and Mali will each involve 40. Each set of volunteers will be split into groups of 20 that will receive different doses of the vaccine so researchers can evaluate the best dose to use in terms of both safety and activity. NIAID are testing this same vaccine in the US, in addition to a related vaccine that is designed to protect against two Ebola species (Ebola Zaire and Ebola Sudan).
Recently, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (a CFR) told the Global Health Security Agenda summit that the Pentagon has a longstanding research program on infectious disease, including Ebola. The Defense Department will now begin clinical trials for a vaccine candidate. “On October 1, 2014, we received approval to begin safety testing for one [Ebola] vaccine candidate that will be conducted here at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research,” Hagel said. The Pentagon is funding an Ebola vaccine under a $140 million project with Tekmira Pharmaceuticals, a Canadian company. Why a Canadian company?
“The most fascinating aspect of the Ebola vaccine manufacturing process is how quickly they have brought it to the trials phase,” writes Dave Mihalovic for Prevent Disease. “It is virtually impossible for vaccine manufacturers to produce and deliver these drugs in the timeline they have proposed. It typically takes several years from the point of initial vaccine development to human clinical trials, a process which the manufacturers claim is being done in weeks and months. The only way it would have been possible was through years of planning and procurement.”
The Pentagon’s interest in Ebola – a disease that until this week remained confined to third world countries in Africa – is suspicious, Mihalovic writes. It’s clear the government has been keeping tabs on Ebola for a while now. It holds the patents on a strain of the Ebola virus known as Bundibugyo (EboBun) that was found in Uganda. It is not clear, however, whether it’s the same strain that has created the current epidemic. The patent, awarded in October 2012, to five scientists led by Jonathan S. Towner, is now deposited with the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In early September, Liberia’s The Daily Observer newspaper speculated the virus had been released on unsuspecting Africans by the Pentagon and pharmaceutical corporations. “Reports narrate stories of the U. S. Department of Defense (DoD) funding Ebola trials on humans, trials which started just weeks before the Ebola outbreak in Guinea and Sierra Leone. The reports continue and state that the DoD gave a contract worth $140 million dollars to Tekmira, a Canadian pharmaceutical company, to conduct Ebola research. This research work involved injecting and infusing healthy humans with the deadly Ebola virus,” writes Dr. Cyril Broderick, a former professor of Plant Pathology at the University of Liberia’s College of Agriculture and Forestry.
Broderick claims Ebola is a genetically modified organism designed by the “American Military-Medical-Industry that conducts biological weapons tests under the guise of administering vaccinations to control diseases” in Africa and other third world countries. Broderick also claims the World Health Organization and other United Nations agencies “have been implicated in selecting and enticing African countries to participate in the testing events” and are “promoting vaccinations.”
An official from India’s Defense Research & Development Organization recently created controversy when he said the Ebola outbreak could be part of a biological warfare program.
“We have created three vaccines,” it was announced in an interview with Rossiya-1 TV on October 13, 2014. “One vaccine is based on a strain of Ebola, and the other two have been created by means of genetic engineering.”
Russian virologists have also created an anti-virus drug that, they believe, could be successfully used for treating Ebola as tests have showed that it is effective in curing Ebola-related diseases.
Now several countries are trying to develop an effective treatment.
On October 16, 2014, a doctor claimed he developed a successful drug to combat Ebola with the U.S. Army at Ft. Detrick Maryland, but the research was inexplicably shut down two weeks before the first outbreak of the virus in West Africa. In an interview, a former U. S. Navy flight surgeon said he was leading a project to develop a drug called RC-2Beta, which works, “at the core of our cells to enhance mitochondrial efficiency and promote gene signaling to stimulate cellular self-repair and pathogen destruction.”
In the fall of 2013, the doctor’s company began collaborating with the U. S. Army at their Level-4 bioweapons facility at Ft. Detrick, Maryland to develop the drug, with astounding success. The drug allegedly “Killed four of the world’s deadliest viruses in a dose-dependent fashion. The Army also noted that uninfected cells in the same cultures were untouched by the drug (i.e., it was non-toxic).”
The Army initially indicated to the doctor and his team that they were ready to move ahead quickly with further testing, but suddenly communication completely ceased. “Our once close communications and cordial relationship with the Ft. Detrick team went totally and inexplicably silent. Our phone calls went unanswered and emails unreturned,” the doctor said, adding he was “stunned” when the first reports of Ebola emerged in Africa just two weeks later.
The doctor also desperately contacted mainstream media outlets in an effort to get the story out, including CNN (a CFR corp through it’s parent Time Warner), ABC, MSNBC (a CFR corp through its parent General Electric), CBS (a CFR corp through its parent National Amusements), the New York Times, the Washington Post (a BB corp through its owner Jeff Bezos), the LA Times and others. After making initial contact and agreeing to provide documents, the doctor was subsequently stonewalled and every outlet dropped the story. The doctor then turned to Florida Congressman David Jolly in an effort to reopen lines of communication with Ft. Detrick, a process that is ongoing.
“Out of concern and frustration, I made it my personal priority to obtain the two necessary documents (Humanitarian Use Exemption and Export Certificate) needed to ship our drug to the medical teams working desperately in Africa,” according to the doctor. “So I began calling, and writing and faxing everyone who might be able to help. Since May, I have reached out over 200 times to every head of every organization in the world involved with this crisis. This includes the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the various teams at the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, DARPA, multiple private relief and aid organizations (like Doctors Without Borders), and dozens just like them. The response was always the same… Silence…I am left to conclude that America’s leadership is either guilty of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, criminal negligence or worse – treason,” said the doctor, warning that the “crisis will undoubtedly spiral out of control” if the advice of incompetent public health authorities, the government and the media continues to be followed unquestionably.”
One of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies says a vaccine to tackle Ebola will “come too late” to curb the current epidemic, as the UK and other European countries begin screening passengers for the virus at international airports. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) (a CFR corp), a British multinational that produces pharmaceuticals, biologics and vaccines, said a working vaccine would not be readily available until late 2015, by which time the epidemic may have spread far beyond West Africa.
The statement follows warnings from the United Nations and WHO that there could soon be more than 10,000 new cases of Ebola per week if the spread of the disease is not curbed quickly. “We either stop Ebola now or we face an entirely unprecedented situation for which we do not have a plan,” said the UN’s Deputy Ebola Coordinator on October 17, 2014. “The WHO advises within 60 days we must ensure 70 percent of infected people are in a care facility and 70 percent of burials are done without causing further infection,” he added.
On November 1, 2014, the head of GlaxoSmithKline’s Ebola vaccine research said full data on its safety and efficacy would not be ready until late 2015.
When the outbreak was first declared in March, GSK had discussions with the World Health Organization about accelerating the development of the Ebola vaccine, Dr Ballou said. But they had decided, together, not to. “No-one anticipated we would need a vaccine, and so both internally and, I think at the WHO, we felt the best approach was to watch very closely,” said the doctor. He then said it would now take some time to assess all of the data to establish the correct dosage and for how long the vaccine was effective. He also said that could not be done in time for this latest epidemic.
“At the same time we have to be able to manufacture the vaccine at doses that would be consistent with general use, and that’s going to take well into 2016 to be able to do that. I don’t think this can be seen as the primary answer to this particular outbreak,” he said, but the trials under way could help in the future.
On November 13, 2014, the doctor coordinating the investigational partnerships for Doctors Without Borders, said two pharmaceutical drugs were chosen for experiments – antivirals from Japan and the United States – along with the use of a “convalescent plasma,” which is blood taken from people who have survived Ebola and probably have useful antibodies.
Separate trials will be led by three different research partners and involve the WHO and health officials in affected countries.
“If we’re going to find a treatment, we have to do it now – which is why we have to accelerate these trials,” said the chief investigator for the trial led by Oxford University. Oxford’s trial will test the U. S. antiviral drug Brincidofovir in Liberia.
France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research will conduct a trial of the Japanese antiviral drug Favipiravir in Gueckedou, Guinea, and the Antwerp Institute of Tropical Medicine will test convalescent whole blood and plasma therapy in Conakry, Guinea.
Results from some of the trials are expected by February or March.
It was reported on November 7, 2014, that a chemist who has examined published literature on Ebola, has ” not found any convincing evidence that Ebola virus (and for that matter Marburg) has been isolated from humans. There is certainly no confirmatory evidence of human isolation.” Therefore, the need for an Ebola vaccine (even if you believe in the theory of vaccination) is completely unproven. The vaccine would, if it worked, protect against a virus never conclusively IDed in a human.
The chemist stated that it appears the Ebola virus has been extracted from animals—in which case, some element of the virus could be placed in a vaccine. Which element of the virus will that be? According to researchers at the U. S. National Institutes of Health and two companies—Crucell and GSK—two genes from the Ebola virus will be inserted in the vaccine. These genes will be carried in the vaccine, by another virus, most likely a chimpanzee adenovirus. This chimp virus, researchers claim, will not reproduce in the body. It will simply unload its two-gene cargo and fade away. Then, the two Ebola genes will somehow bring about the emergence of an Ebola-related protein, and the human immune system will produce antibodies against that protein. Thus, immunity to Ebola will be created. To say this will produce genuine immunity is highly speculative.
Since there is no proof anyone has ever isolated Ebola virus from a human, the production of antibodies is irrelevant.
What about the dangers of the Ebola vaccine? First, there are the usual toxic chemicals present in vaccines, for example, formaldehyde, polysorbate. We aren’t being told which chemicals (and metals) the vaccine will contain.
Second, what guarantee do we have that the carrier chimp virus won’t reproduce and proliferate in the body? We’re told it’s “not a problem.” That’s what they always say. Vaccines are wonderful, safe and effective. According to the National Vaccine Information Center, reasonable estimates are that there are 100,000 to 1.2 million adverse reactions to vaccines in the U. S. every year. That sounds like a problem.
Third, the process of genetic engineering, by which the two Ebola genes are inserted in the chimp virus…who can predict this will be done in a uniform and safe way, with every Ebola vaccine batch? As a standard of comparison, consider the fact that the insertion of genes into GMO crops is done in shotgun style. The genes aren’t always placed into the same positions in the GMO seeds. Therefore, the ensuing effects are random.
Fourth, it seems that the Ebola-related protein that is produced by the vaccine in the human body is somewhat mysterious. That is, there are several different explanations as to exactly how the protein is created. Not a comforting sign, unless you’re fine with the idea of your body suddenly housing a protein that wasn’t there before.
And finally, who knows what “extra elements” could be added to the vaccine?
As everyone should know by now, the Ebola vaccines under development have never been tested on a wide range of human beings. The clinical trials have used small numbers of people.
This is a huge red flag.
When the Ebola vaccine is released, you can be sure that severe injuries and deaths will be explained away.“He already had a latent case of Ebola disease. We didn’t know that. He died from the disease, not the vaccine,” or, “It was a bad batch. The batch was small. It’s been confiscated. We’re sure the vaccine is safe, ” or, “He had an undiagnosed and undiscovered severe immune-deficiency, which would have killed him in short order…”
On December 9, 2014, the Health and Human Services Secretary announced a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act to facilitate the development and availability of experimental Ebola vaccines. This declaration is intended to assist in the global community’s effort to help combat the current epidemic in West Africa and help prevent future outbreaks there. The declaration provides immunity under United States law against legal claims related to the manufacturing, testing, development, distribution, and administration of three vaccines for Ebola virus disease. It does not, generally, provide immunity for a claim brought in a court outside the United States.
The PREP Act declaration is expected to strengthen the incentive to conduct research and spur development, manufacturing, and the potential use of the vaccines in large scale vaccination campaigns in West Africa. The PREP Act declaration provides legal protection under U.S. law for three vaccine candidates:
- the GlaxoSmithKline’s Recombinant Replication Deficient Chimpanzee Adenovirus Type 3-Vectored Ebola Zaire Vaccine known as ChAd3-EBO-Z;
- the BPSC1001 vaccine, known as rVSV-ZEBOV-GP, made by BioProtection Services Corporation, a subsidiary of Newlink Genetics; and
- the Ad26.ZEBOV/MVA-BN-Filo vaccine manufactured by Janssen Corporation, subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson/Bavarian Nordic.
Now the government can legally put anything they want into the vaccines and no citizen can do a thing about it!
On March 6, 2015, it was reported that a doctor began getting sick just 12 hours after receiving an experimental Ebola vaccine, and just two days after he stuck himself with a needle while caring for Ebola patients in September 2014. When the symptoms began appearing, he was aboard a jet, being evacuated from Sierra Leone to the United States, to a strict isolation center at the National Institutes of Health outside Washington D.C.
Months later, it’s fairly clear the vaccine caused the reaction, since the doctor has no trace of an Ebola infection. What’s not entirely clear is whether the vaccine stopped the virus from taking hold, or whether the doctor was never infected in the first place.
“My gut leads me to believe he was never exposed. You can never prove it,” an Ebola vaccine expert at the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, said.
According to the doctor, “While providing clinical care in the confirmed ward of the Ebola Treatment Unit at the Kenema Government Hospital in Kenema, Sierra Leone, I accidentally stuck an 18-gauge hollow-bore needle deep into my left thumb.” The doctor had two choices: an experimental drug made by Canadian company Tekmira, or an experimental Ebola vaccine that had not, at that time, ever been tested in humans. The doctor chose the vaccine.
“The patient developed malaise, nausea and fever 12 hours after the vaccination while on the transport jet,” doctors from Emory University wrote in a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on March 5, 2015. They could have been symptoms of Ebola, or from the vaccine, which is made using a “live” virus called vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) genetically engineered to carry a small, non-infectious piece of Ebola virus. By design, the vaccine causes a mild infection that activates the immune system and helps it recognize Ebola.
“On day two, the fever declined; however, severe symptoms continued along with mild nausea and arthralgia (joint pain),” the Emory doctors wrote. “On days three through five, the patient experienced resolution of symptoms and laboratory abnormalities. By day seven, he was completely asymptomatic.” It’s not even clear if all the symptoms were caused by the vaccine, or perhaps an unrelated illness. Since then, the vaccine has been tested in dozens of people and it’s being distributed in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea in several different trials.
THE POTENTIAL TREATMENTS —
When did research on developing an Ebola vaccine actually begin?
We’ve all been led to believe that no vaccine exists for Ebola, and that’s why some pharmaceutical companies are working with governments to develop a vaccine as quickly as possible to stop the current outbreak that has killed thousands. But is it true that a vaccine hasn’t been worked on until now?
On December 2, 2014, Obama noted that NIH scientists first began work on research that led to the potential Ebola vaccine in 1999, long before the worst outbreak of the disease on record, which has killed more than 6,000 people since March.
Are we supposed to believe that NIH researched Ebola for 14 years, but couldn’t come up with a potential vaccine until the biggest Ebola outbreak in history occurred? The current outbreak is the 11th to have occurred since 1999. Why didn’t NIH have a vaccine ready to test in any of those outbreaks?
The Ad26.ZEBOV/MVA-BN-Filo vaccine manufactured by Janssen Corporation, subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson/Bavarian Nordic —
On Deember 1, 2014, it was announced that phase 1 trials are to begin early next year for a two-vaccine regimen involving an adenovirus-based vaccine developed by U. S. pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson and the NIAID, and a vaccine that is made from vaccinia (a virus similar to the one that causes cowpox) developed by Bavarian Nordic in Denmark.
Brincidofovir vaccine —
This drug had originally been developed to treat infections with DNA-containing viruses. Brincidofovir is a modified version of an antiviral drug called cidofovir, which inhibits replication of a variety of DNA viruses including poxviruses and herpesviruses. When cidofovir enters a cell, two phosphates are added to the compound by a cellular enzyme, producing cidofovir diphosphate. Cidofovir is used by viral DNA polymerases because it looks very much like a normal building block of DNA, cytidine. For reasons that are not known, incorporation of phosphorylated cidofovir causes inefficient viral DNA synthesis. As a result, viral replication is inhibited. Brincidofovir inhibits poxviruses, herpesviruses, and adenoviruses, and has been tested in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. The antiviral drug is being stockpiled by the U.S. for use in the event of a bioterrorism attack with smallpox virus.
Ebola virus is an RNA virus, so why was brincidofovir used to treat the Dallas patient? According to the drug’s manufacturer, the company provided several drugs to the CDC and NIH to determine if they could inhibit virus replication. Apparently brincidofovir was found to be a potent inhibitor of Ebola virus replication in cell culture.
The drug is not without side effects and these might not be tolerated in Ebola virus-infected patients.
On October 6, 2014, it was announced that Thomas Duncan, the first Ebola patient diagnosed on American soil and being treated in Dallas, would be receiving an experimental drug called brincidofovir, but the drug has yet to be tested for effectiveness against Ebola in humans or monkeys.
Though brincidofovir has been tested in humans against other viruses, it has only been tested against Ebola in small cell studies. Those studies, which were done in partnership with the National Institutes of Health and the CDC, were promising, the company said. Testing at the Viral Special Pathogens Branch of the CDC and the NIH that showed brincidofovir had, in test tubes, showed testing “activity” against the Ebola virus that was comparable to how the drug performed against other viral diseases, including smallpox and adenovirus.
Brincidofovir is an oral antiviral drug made by a small North Carolina drug company called Chimerix, which has been working on the drug for the past 14 years. The company claims the drug can fight off multiple viruses, including adenovirus and herpes simplex. It’s also been studied against smallpox as part of a partnership with the National Institute of Asthma and Infectious Diseases.
Chimerix also noted that clinical data collected during Phase 3 testing of brincidofovir for use in patients with cytomegalovirus and adenovirus infection have shown it to be safe, which opened the door for an investigation into whether it is a potential therapy for Ebola.
Apparently the Chimerix drug was given to Mr. Duncan a couple of days before he died. That makes it unclear if the drug would have worked had it been given to him sooner, since it’s very rare someone survives Ebola when it reaches the last stage.
GlaxoSmithKline’s Recombinant Replication Deficient Chimpanzee Adenovirus Type 3-Vectored Ebola Zaire Vaccine known as ChAd3-EBO-Z —
The vaccine, which is known as a non-replicating viral vector, has already been shown to be safe and effective when used on primates. It is based on a type of chimpanzee cold virus called chimp adenovirus type 3 (ChAd3).
It works by entering a cell and delivering gene inserts to stop the virus from replicating; the gene inserts provide a protein which triggers the body’s immune response, the director of the NIAID explained on August 28, 2014. The vaccine delivers segments of two strains of the virus: Zaire Ebola and Sudan Ebola. The Zaire strain of the virus, which is the most deadly, is responsible for the current outbreak.
This study will be the first of several early trials to be conducted on the vaccine. The testing will take place at NIH’s campus in Bethesda, Maryland. Later in September, NIH and a British team will test the same vaccine on other volunteers in the United Kingdom, Gambia and Mali. The CDC may also conduct a clinical trial in Nigeria.
On August 28, 2014, it was announced that a candidate Ebola vaccine could be given to healthy volunteers in the UK, The Gambia and Mali as early as September, as part of a series of safety trials of potential vaccines aimed at preventing the disease.
Human trials of this candidate vaccine, being co-developed by the U. S. NIH and GlaxoSmithKline, are to be accelerated with funding from an international consortium in response to the Ebola epidemic.
A £2.8 million grant from the Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) will allow a team of the Jenner Institute at the University of Oxford, to start safety tests of the vaccine alongside similar trials in the U. S. run by the NIAID.
The consortium’s funding will also enable GSK to begin manufacturing up to around 10,000 additional doses of the vaccine at the same time as the initial clinical trials, so that if the trials are successful stocks could then be made available immediately by GSK to the WHO to create an emergency immunization program for high-risk communities.
It was reported that on September 2, 2014, claiming it was an accident, pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline contaminated a Rixensart, Belgium river called Lasne with approximately 12 gallons of concentrated live poliovirus solution processed at a nearby sewage system which made its way into the country’s waterways. The Lasne flows into another river called the Dyle, and it is uncertain where else the live poliovirus will be found.
Authorities believe that the high level of vaccine coverage in the area will prevent Belgians from contracting polio, but just as bodies of water flow into one another in the United States, so do they elsewhere, and this would be an easy way for a eugenicist company to spread disease. Of course, a booster polio vaccination is being suggested for people who have been exposed to water from the Lasne River.
Supposedly, samples of mud and water from the treatment plant of Rosieres, Lasne and Dyle have shown no presence of the polio virus.
Polio invades the nervous system and can cause debilitating paralysis in a matter of hours. It also gains entrance through the mouth and multiplies in the intestines. Most people infected with polio have mild or no symptoms and usually go unrecognized, but others experience initial symptoms of fever, fatigue, headache, vomiting, stiffness in the neck, and pain in the limbs.
On September 8, 2014, it was reported that new monkey studies show that one shot of an experimental Ebola vaccine can trigger fast protection, but the effect waned unless the animals got a booster shot made a different way. One reason the vaccine was deemed promising was that a single dose protected all four vaccinated monkeys when they were exposed to high levels of Ebola virus just five weeks later. Researchers exposed monkeys to Ebola 10 months after vaccination, but this time only half were protected.
The vaccine is made with a chimpanzee cold virus, used as a delivery system for pieces of an Ebola gene. The researchers tried simply giving another dose as a booster two months later. That didn’t work well enough. So they tried a different approach called “prime-boost.” The first dose, to prime the immune system, was that original chimp virus-based Ebola vaccine. But for the booster two months later, they made vaccine a different way. They encased the same Ebola gene pieces inside a poxvirus that’s used to make a vaccine against smallpox. (Neither vaccine type can cause Ebola.)
It was announced on September 17, 2014, that approximately 60 healthy people are expected to be given doses of the vaccine as part of the clinical trial at the University of Oxford.
The vaccine is made from a harmless chimpanzee virus that has been genetically modified to carry a benign payload of Ebola DNA. The genetic material will make a single Ebola protein in the body – not enough to cause the disease, but enough to prime the immune system to attack the virus in future.
The volunteers will be given different doses and then monitored for side effects and their immune response.
Trials in monkeys have shown the vaccine is 100% effective in the first month, with some protection remaining 10 months later.
Scientists and medicines regulators are fast-tracking the testing process, which would normally take at least 18 months. They hope to start widespread use of the vaccine in West Africa early next year.
The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, will scale up production even while testing is under way, so 10,000 doses will be ready to be sent out to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea as soon as the vaccine is given the green light.
Hmmm . . . making vaccines while engaging in corruption! Drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline, which was slapped with a record $489 million fine for corruption in China last month, said on October 7, 2014, it was looking into allegations of corruption in the United Arab Emirates.
On October 22, 2014, it was announced that hundreds of GlaxoSmithKline’s 17,000 U. S.-based employees will lose their jobs by the end of next year under the pharmaceutical industry’s latest restructuring. The company is making changes worldwide that are meant to produce about $1.6 billion in annual savings within about three years—from units including research and development, manufacturing, sales and marketing, and support functions.
The restructuring plan was announced when the company reported third-quarter results that included a 13 percent drop in global sales and a 62 percent plunge in net income. GSK, the world’s sixth-biggest drugmaker by revenue, said in October that while some parts of the company are growing, sales fell by 10 percent in the U.S. and by 2 percent in Europe.
GlaxoSmithKline’s global restructuring also includes an agreement with rival drugmaker Novartis AG for a three-part transaction that is set to close in the first half of next year. Under that deal, Glaxo will transfer its cancer drug business to Novartis in exchange for the Novartis vaccines business.
Swiss regulators announced on October 29, 2014, that they would allow trials of an experimental vaccine made by Britain’s GlaxoSmithKine, and tests on some 120 individuals were set to get under way in a couple fo days. Most of the volunteers will receive the experimental GSK vaccine called ChAd3, which is based on a genetically modified chimpanzee adenovirus, but 20 of them would receive a placebo.
On November 27, 2014, is was announced that study volunteers did not report any serious side effects after receiving the vaccine. However, two people who received a higher dose of the vaccine developed fever within 24 hours, which was resolved with over-the-counter anti-inflammatory medications.
The vaccine is composed of a type of chimpanzee cold virus called chimp adenovirus type 3 (ChAd3), which is used as a carrier that delivers small doses of genetic material derived from Ebola. The virus doesn’t replicate once it enters human cells, but it does trigger an immune response.
The NIAID is testing two versions of the vaccine. The findings of this study are based on the bivalent vaccine, which is composed of genetic material from both Ebola Zaire and Sudan Ebola. The monovalent version of the vaccine contains genetic material only from Ebola Zaire, the most deadly form of the virus which is responsible for the current outbreak in West Africa. The monovalent trial is currently underway, and the vaccine is being tested on 60 healthy volunteers at the University of Oxford in England and 40 healthy volunteers in Mali in Africa. The researchers expect to release preliminary data from these trials by the end of the year.
On December 1, 2014, it was announced that an experimental vaccine against Ebola seems to be safe and causes a strong immune response against the virus, according to tests in 20 healthy people in the United States. “All in all, I would say it was a successful phase 1 study. The next steps are to move ahead with a larger efficacy trial in West Africa,” said the director of the NIAID, which co-developed the drug with drug company GlaxoSmithKline.
The vaccine that has been tested in the United States was made from a cold-causing chimpanzee adenovirus that had been engineered to express proteins from two species of the Ebola virus, known as Zaire and Sudan, and was already available when the trial began in early September. However, the outbreak in West Africa is caused by a strain of virus from the Zaire species, known as Zaire-Guinea. Vaccine developers have agreed that so-called monovalent vaccines that target only the Zaire species should be deployed in West Africa. Safety tests of one such vaccine, also developed by GSK and the NIAID, began in October at several sites, including in Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Mali.
In the trial of the bivalent vaccine, volunteers received one of two doses. None of the participants developed any major health problems, though two ran a brief fever within a day of getting the higher dose. Blood samples from all the participants contained antibodies against at least one of the species or strains. But volunteers who received the high dose of the vaccine made more antibodies against the Zaire-Guinea strain than did those who received a lower dose.
Only an efficacy trial involving people at risk of infection can reveal whether a vaccine prevents infection. But the levels of antibodies that the high-dose volunteers generated were in line with those seen in monkeys that were protected from Ebola after receiving the same vaccine, the NIAID director said.
“The immune responses are there, the tough call is whether they’re enough to protect humans against Ebola, and I guess we’ll find that out in the phase 3 trial,” said the director of the Jenner Institute in Oxford, UK, who is leading a small safety trial of the monovalent NIAID/GSK vaccine. “The big caveat here is this is not the vaccine that will be used in West Africa.”
A Tulane University physician involved in that trial who wrote an editorial accompanying the paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine, says that the immune responses look good, but are difficult to interpret because researchers don’t know what kind of immune response is necessary to prevent an Ebola infection. “Since we don’t know where the bar is, that’s a challenge in interpreting these kinds of studies.”
Is this just a coincidence?
On October 9, 2014, it was announced that three Malian health-care workers became the first recipients of a new, experimental Ebola vaccine in Africa’s first-ever trial of this kind.
There haven’t been any Ebola cases in Mali to date, despite the fact that the country shares a large land border with Guinea, which has suffered more than 1,200 cases since the epidemic began. Yet officials are testing it on health-care workers because they will be at the greatest risk should the virus cross the border.
The vaccine contains a cold virus that infects chimpanzees, along with a single gene from the Ebola virus, which the researchers hope will prompt the body to develop an immune response to Ebola. It does not contain infectious material, and people cannot catch Ebola from the vaccine, experts said.
On October 13, 2014, it was announced that the first-ever human trials for an Ebola vaccine started in Mali a few days ago. On October 8, the first health worker received the drug. Over the course of the trial, which is being organized by the University of Maryland and Mali’s Health Ministry, a total of 40 volunteers will be given the vaccine.
On October 23, 2014, the first-ever case of Ebola was confirmed in Mali, when a two-year-old girl arrived with a family group from Guinea. She died the next day. It was later confirmed that a number of family members had also died of Ebola.
On October 24, 2014, it was reported that the GSK vaccine was being tested in Mali, the UK and the U. S. The results are expected in December. After that, trials will move to countries affected by Ebola, probably starting with Liberia.
Healthcare workers, who place themselves at risk when treating patients, will take part in the first trials in West Africa. The WHO says we should have the first hints of how effective these experimental vaccines are by April.
On November 12, 2014, Mali reported deaths from Ebola in an outbreak that is not connected to the October 23 outbreak. The first probable case was an imam who had fallen ill on October 17 in Guinea, and was transferred to a clinic in Mali’s capital city for treatment. He was treated for kidney failure but not tested for Ebola. He died on October 27. A nurse and doctor who had treated the imam subsequently fell ill with Ebola and died. Four additional cases related to the imam were reported, with one of the four being a friend of the nurse that had died from Ebola. On December 16, Mali released the final 13 individuals who were being quarantined, and the country is expected to be declared Ebola-free on January 18, 2015.
On November 13, 2014, a hospital spokesman in Mali’s capital confirmed that a girl has become the fourth suspected Ebola victim there. For months, Mali had been spared from the Ebola crisis despite sharing a border with Guinea, where the epidemic first began.
GlaxoSmithKline treatment bottom line —
When tested on primates, two dose$, two month$ apart, had to be given. The first dose was made from the chimpanzee cold virus that has been genetically modified to carry a benign payload of Ebola DNA, and the second dose was made by encasing the same Ebola gene pieces inside a poxvirus that’s used to make a vaccine against smallpox. Although it is quite rare, some people do die from the smallpox vaccination.
The chimpanzee treatment required two doses, but the human trials consist of one dose.
GSK recently paid China nearly a half billion dollar fine for corruption, and is investigating another corruption charge in the United Arab Emirates. In September it was reported that GSK “accidentally” dumped 12 gallons of live poliovirus into a Belgian river. It’s getting difficult to tell exactly what business GSK is in!
In October it was announced GSK will be cutting hundreds of positions in its U.S.-based facilities due to a 10 percent drop in U.S. sales.
Would you take a vaccine that consisted of a genetically modified animal virus and a poxvirus used to make a smallpox vaccine that once in a while kills someone receiving the vaccine, that is made by a company assessed record-breaking fines for corruption, that dumps live poliovirus into a river, and can’t be sued by anyone receiving the vaccine that has adverse affects from the vaccine?
The BPSC1001 vaccine, known as rVSV-ZEBOV-GP, made by BioProtection Services Corporation, a subsidiary of Newlink Genetics —
NewLink is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing and commercializing novel immuno-oncology products to improve treatment options for patients with cancer. In November, NewLink announced it had made a deal with Merck Pharmaceutical to get its experimental Ebola vaccine completed faster than they could do on their own. Hmmm . . . a company that creates cancer treatments teams with a company that puts cancer viruses in its vaccines. What could possibly go wrong there?
Almost a decade ago, scientists from Canada and the United States reported they had created a vaccine that was 100 percent effective in protecting monkeys against the Ebola virus. The results were published in a respected journal, and health officials called them exciting. The researchers said tests in people might start within two years, and a product could potentially be ready for licensing by 2010 or 2011.
The vaccine sat on a shelf. Only now is it undergoing the most basic safety tests in humans.
Its development stalled in part because Ebola is rare, and until now, outbreaks had infected only a few hundred people at a time. But experts also acknowledge that the absence of follow-up on such a promising candidate reflects a broader failure to produce medicines and vaccines for diseases that afflict poor countries. Most drug companies have resisted spending the enormous sums needed to develop products useful mostly to countries with little ability to pay.
“There’s never been a big market for Ebola vaccines,” according to an Ebola expert here at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, and one of the developers of the vaccine that worked so well in monkeys. “So big pharma, who are they going to sell it to?” The doctor added: “It takes a crisis sometimes to get people talking. ‘O.K. We’ve got to do something here.’” Hmmm . . . that sounds familiar. In 2009, Obama’s Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
According to the director of a vaccine research center at Vanderbilt University, academic researchers who develop a prototype drug or vaccine that works in animals often encounter a “biotech valley of death” in which no drug company would help them cross the finish line. To that point, the research may have cost a few million dollars, but tests in humans and scaling up production can cost hundreds of millions, and bringing a new vaccine all the way to market typically costs $1 billion to $1.5 billion, the director said. “Who’s going to pay for that? People invest in order to get money back.”
The Ebola vaccine on which the University of Texas at Galveston collaborated is made from another virus, V.S.V., for vesicular stomatitis virus, which causes hoof-and-mouth disease in cattle and is treated by slaughtering the infected cattle, but rarely infects people. It had been used successfully in making other vaccines. The researchers altered V.S.V. by removing one of its genes — rendering the virus harmless — and inserting a gene from Ebola. The transplanted gene forces V.S.V. to sprout Ebola proteins on its surface. The proteins cannot cause illness, but they provoke an immune response that in monkeys, considered a good surrogate for humans, fought off the disease. V.S.V. is a member of the rabies virus family.
The vaccine was actually produced in Winnipeg, Manitoba, by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The Canadian government patented it, and 800 to 1,000 vials of the vaccine were produced. In 2010, it licensed the vaccine, known as VSV-EBOV, to NewLink Genetics in Ames, Iowa.
NewLink’s product is one of two leading vaccines being tested. The other, which uses a cold virus that infects chimpanzees, was developed by researchers at the National Institutes of Health and GlaxoSmithKline. The first tests of an earlier version of it, employing a different cold virus, began in 2003. The newer version of the vaccine uses a slightly different form of V.S.V., one that a doctor at the University of Texas said he thought might be less likely to cause side effects, and more likely to gain quick approval because it has been used as the basis for an H.I.V. vaccine and is known to the Food and Drug Administration. But the new version, VesiculoVax, made by Profectus Biosciences in Baltimore, has not yet been tested in humans.
The V.S.V. products are live vaccines, with replicating viruses that may cause a reaction. It is not clear what level of side effects will be considered acceptable. Chills and nausea are possible, the doctor said, but he added, “Who cares, if you survive Ebola?”
Most vaccines are given to prevent disease before people are exposed to it, and the plan is to use Ebola vaccines that way. But the V.S.V. vaccines have also been shown to protect monkeys even after the animals have been exposed to a heavy dose of Ebola — if given soon after exposure.
On November 24, 2014, it was announced that NewLink Genetics, a tiny company in Ames, Iowa, that was virtually unknown, had made a deal with drugmaker Merck, to research, develop, manufacture and distribute the experimental Ebola vaccine.
The NewLink vaccine is based on a harmless virus that has been genetically engineered to incorporate bits of the Ebola virus. The Canadian government developed the vaccine and then licensed it to this small biotech company. The U.S. Defense Department has provided development funding to NewLink. In reality, the “harmless virus” vaccine is a live vaccine, with replicating viruses that may cause a reaction. It is not clear what level of side effects will be considered acceptable. The virus is in the same family of viruses as the rabies virus.
“Merck’s vaccine development expertise, commercial leadership and history of successful strategic alliances make it an ideal partner to expedite the development of [the experimental vaccine] and, if demonstrated to be efficacious and well-tolerated, to make it available to individuals and communities at risk of Ebola virus infection around the world,” said NewLink’s CEO.
On December 12, 2014, it was reported that In Geneva, clinical trials of a promising Ebola vaccine developed by the Canadian government had been halted after four patients complained of joint pains. Officials at the University Hospital of Geneva decided to suspend the experimental testing of the Ebola vaccine donated by the National Laboratory of Microbiology in Winnipeg after symptoms of joint pain were reported by patients 10 to 15 days after receiving an injection of the experimental Canadian vaccine.
“We want to suspend the clinical trial for a few weeks because we were not expecting to observe the reaction,” a microbiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University Hospital of Geneva said. “Other teams testing the same vaccine have not experienced similar side effects.” The side effects reported were minor, and the patients reporting the joint pain were able to continue their normal activities without difficulty.
Researchers at the University Hospital in Geneva plan to resume testing the experimental Canadian virus January 5, 2015.
Merck/NewLink treatment bottom line —
Would you take a vaccine that is made from a genetically modified deadly animal virus and a relative of the rabies virus, that contains live replicating viruses that may cause side effects, but it’s unknown what level of side effects will be considered acceptable, that is made by a company that puts cancer viruses in vaccinations, and can’t be sued by anyone receiving the vaccine that has adverse reactions to the vaccine? Hmmm . . . what might they add to this vaccine?
Profectus BioSciences —
On October 31, 2014, the biotech company, Profectus BioSciences, announced that the Pentagon awarded a $9.5 million contract for “the manufacture and … preclinical testing of the Profectus trivalent Ebola/Marburg vaccine” which had previously been tested to “confirm protection of non-human primates from aerosol exposure to Ebola and Marburg viruses.”
“In July 2014, Profectus BioSciences and the GNL were awarded a 3 year, $8.5M grant from the DOD/Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program to support development of a . . . vaccine to protect against all major strains of Ebola and Marburg viruses delivered as aerosols,” the press release stated. “The . . . vaccine is being tested in both pre-exposure and post-exposure studies to confirm protection of non-human primates from aerosol exposure to Ebola and Marburg viruses.”
The development of this vaccine stemmed from the Pentagon’s concern over the airborne transmission of filoviruses such as Ebola which the CDC finally admitted spreads like the flu through coughing and sneezing. “The DoD seeks a . . . filovirus vaccine that is effective against aerosol exposure and protective against filovirus disease for at least one year,” read an executive summary of the workshop.
Recently the CDC released a pamphlet warning against the “droplet spread” of Ebola which happens “when germs traveling inside droplets that are coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose, or mouth of another person.” The pamphlet also states that Ebola is spread through droplets. U.S. Army scientists previously demonstrated that the airborne transmission of Ebola was possible “at lower temperature and humidity than that normally present in sub-Saharan Africa” during a 1995 study, and they suggested the high temperatures and humidity present in Africa “may have been a factor limiting aerosol transmission of Ebola virus in the African epidemics.
When the Pentagon awarded a multi-million dollar contract to Profectus BioSciences, Inc., on October 31, 2014, through its Medical Countermeasure Systems-Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program that develops and stockpiles vaccines to be used on soldiers, it was continuing a long-standing relationship between the Pentagon and the medical industry that is concerning on many levels.
“The $9.5 million award has been made with Battelle Memorial Institute through the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, & Nuclear Defense Information Analysis Center,” according to a PRNewswire release. CBRNIAC is part of the Pentagon’s Defense Technical Information Center. DTIC provides a “suite of services” to defense contractors and academic institutions. It also provides services of the Homeland Security “community.” According to the manager of the Pentagon’s Medical Countermeasure Systems-Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program, “We are continuing to develop a trivalent vaccine that will protect our service members and DoD civilians against the major filovirus threats: Ebola Zaire, Ebola Sudan, and Marburg viruses. The DoD is optimistic that its long-term commitment to identifying and supporting safe and effective trivalent filovirus vaccines is coming to fruition and remains supportive to advancing the Profectus BioSciences trivalent Ebola/Marburg vaccine into human clinical trials as rapidly as possible.”
A few days before the award, the Medical Countermeasure Systems-Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program awarded Colorado State University’s (CSU) Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing and Academic Resource Center $2 million to work on an Ebola and Marburg vaccine. “Among MCS-JVAP’s requirements is to develop a vaccine to protect soldiers from exposure to filoviruses, which cause several types of hemorrhagic fever,” Global Biodefense reports. Soldiers will become guinea pigs for a vaccine destined for public application. On October 27, USA Today reported the center at CSU “develops and stockpiles vaccines and countermeasures that can be used to protect soldiers, but the research ultimately will benefit civilians.”
The link between the Pentagon and defense contractors raises serious questions, according to Global Research. “This link between the U.S. military and pharmaceutical companies in the production of flu vaccines raises serious questions, especially since the H1N1 pandemic has been exposed as a multibillion dollar fraud instigated by Big Pharma and the World Health Organization (WHO).”
In 2012, Medicago, a corporation owned by Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp. and Philip Morris, partnered with the Pentagon on the development of an influenza vaccine. They have also been working on an Ebola antibody.
On October 1, the Pentagon’s funding of an Ebola vaccine under a $140 million project with Tekmira Pharmaceuticals, a Canadian company, was revealed.
“It is clear that the U. S. government has been keeping tabs on Ebola for a while now,” according to Prevent Disease. “It holds the patents on a strain of the Ebola virus known as Bundibugyo (EboBun) that was found in Uganda. It is not clear whether it is the same strain that has created the current epidemic. The patent, awarded in October 2012 to five scientists . . . is now deposited with the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
“Reports narrate stories of the U. S. Department of Defense (DoD) funding Ebola trials on humans, trials which started just weeks before the Ebola outbreak in Guinea and Sierra Leone. The reports continue and state that the DoD gave a contract worth $140 million dollars to Tekmira, a Canadian pharmaceutical company, to conduct Ebola research. This research work involved injecting and infusing healthy humans with the deadly Ebola virus,” according to a former professor of Plant Pathology at the University of Liberia’s College of Agriculture and Forestry.
The professor claims Ebola is a genetically modified organism designed by the “American Military-Medical-Industry that conducts biological weapons tests under the guise of administering vaccinations to control diseases” in Africa and other third world countries. He also claims the WHO and other United Nations agencies “have been implicated in selecting and enticing African countries to participate in the testing events” and are “promoting vaccinations.”
Tekmira Pharmaceutical’s TKM-Ebola —
The Tekmira Company, which produces the TKM-Ebola drug, received a $1.5 million dollar investment from Monsanto, in January of this year. It was a stock option that could potentially return $86.5 million on their investment. The stock of this company spiked 12 days before the Ebola outbreak in Guinea was announced.
ZMapp Treatment —
ZMapp was developed by the San Diego company Mapp Biopharmaceutical Inc, with U. S. military funding, using antibodies harvested from lab mice that have been injected with parts of the Ebola virus. The GMO antibodies are then put into a bacteria, and then this mixture is injected into tobacco plants that have been genetically engineered with different components of the Ebola virus in order to make the treatment. The infection spurs the plants to make ‘plantibodies’ to the virus, including the pieces of viral Ebola DNA. The tobacco is then crushed up and the Ebola serum is extracted. It contains ‘plantibodies’ that target several parts of the virus.
“What you want is a cocktail of antibodies that target different domains on the virus so escape is less likely in treatment,”according to the chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Laboratory of Virology in Hamilton, Montana. Growing the genetically modified plants and refining the serum takes just five weeks. Kentucky company Kentucky BioProcessing contracts with MAPP to grow and refine the tobacco plants and is involved in studies targeting other infectious disease.
Mapp Biopharmaceutical partners include Defyrus Inc., and a subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc. (a BB corp). The Public Health Agency of Canada said it was involved in the development of ZMapp, but the agency was not involved in the decisions to administer the treatment.
ZMapp is also receiving funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that has donated $50 million to the effort. Sounds great, except Bill Gates (a BB) is a eugenicist, and is on record saying that the world population needs to be reduced by 15%, and a great way to do that is with vaccines. In 2011, the Gates Foundation had a program in India to eradicate polio. The result — over 64,000 children were paralyzed from the vaccine.
FDA permission must be obtained before any experimental treatments can be used in the U. S., but other countries are beyond the FDA’s authority. The experimental drug was flown to Africa, and some aid workers were treated in Liberia. The FDA has declined to comment on their treatment.
Researchers are also working on an experimental Ebola vaccine to prevent infection, but unlike a vaccine, ZMapp is designed to be given after exposure to the virus. “It basically neutralizes the virus so it can’t do any further damage,” according to the chief of the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s virology laboratory in Hamilton, Montana. “It’s a cocktail of antibodies. If you go through an infection as a human being or animal or get a vaccine, you will have an immune response to something foreign to your body. One response is using antibodies, a portion we call neutralizing antibodies.” Neutralizing antibodies attack the virus by interfering with its surface.
On August 5, 2014, it was reported that as with other companies working on small molecules and biologicals against Ebola and other hemorrhagic fever viruses, MappBio was the beneficiary of grants and contracts from federal agencies that include the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), the Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects (DARPA), and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). The U. S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) has been a critical driver of much of this work as they maintain biosafety level-4 facilities in Frederick, Maryland, and have extensive expertise with non-human primates as a model for human infectious diseases.
The ZMapp product is the result of a collaboration between Mapp, San Diego-based LeafBio, and Toronto-based Defyrus Inc., “a private, life sciences biodefence company that collaborates with military and public health R&D partners in the United States, Asia and Canada.” The Public Health Agency of Canada is the Defyrus partner north of the border.
The antibody mixture prevented the death of small groups of monkeys infected with Ebolavirus infection: six of six monkeys survived when given the antibodies one hour after infection while four of six survived when given the antibodies 48 hours after infection.
For comparison, Dr. Kent Brantly didn’t receive ZMapp until nine days after he showed symptoms.
What’s confusing at this point is whether the published antibody mixture is the same that has been used in Dr. Brantly and, reportedly, Nancy Wrightbol. Mapp’s antibody mixture is termed MB-003 but in a press release from Mapp and LeafBio, ZMapp is described as “an optimized cocktail combining the best components of MB-003 (Mapp) and ZMAb (Defyrus/PHAC).” It was only on July 15 that Defyrus announced that their monoclonal antibody portfolio, including ZMAb would be licensed to LeafBio, the commercialization partner of Mapp Biopharmaceuticals.
What is known is that the antibodies are produced in an Australian strain of the tobacco plant (Nicotiana benthamiana) by Kentucky Bioprocessing in Owensboro, Kentucky, a 23-acre, contract R&D and protein production company that was acquired in January by Reynolds America, Inc. (a BB corp), the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco.
In 2007, Mapp engaged KBP to manufacture a post-exposure treatment for Ebola infection, according to the head of external communications for RAI Services Company. The limited product information sheet published overnight by LeafBio and Mapp reiterate that extremely small amounts of the product remains available. RAI Services Company said scale-up for anticipated human trials would take “two months or longer.”
The version of tobacco used by KBP is one that is easily manipulated with recombinant DNA techniques and amenable to automated greenhouse operations. This same tobacco species is one also used by Medicago USA for development of a pandemic influenza virus. You read that correctly! Medicago USA is developing a pandemic influenza virus!
The USAMRIID, Mapp, and KBP team published work in 2012 demonstrating the three antibodies produced in Nicotiana benthamiana were superior to those made in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells, the most common FDA-approved host for human therapeutics.
It cannot be conclusively stated that the cocktail saved Dr. Brantly, reversed his breathing problems, or cleared his rash. He received the drug in an uncontrolled and unblinded drug trial, occurring before the most appropriate antibody dose to give patients was known. The reason for doing controlled trials is to prevent researchers (and the press) from inferring that something works when, in reality, the patient’s disease might have begun to resolve on its own had the treatment not been given.
ZMapp’s antibody work came out of research projects funded more than a decade ago by the U. S. Army to develop treatments and vaccines against potential bio-warfare agents, such as the Ebola virus. The tobacco plant production system was developed because it was a method that could produce antibodies rapidly in the event of an emergency.
To produce therapeutic proteins inside a tobacco plant, genes for the desired antibodies are fused to genes for a natural tobacco virus, and the tobacco plants are then infected with this new artificial virus, according to an August 5, 2014, interview with the chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Laboratory of Virology, who hasn’t been involved in developing treatments.
Monoclonal antibodies designed to fight and block specific proteins can stop the virus from latching onto and entering cells, the NIAID chief said. The key is to find antibodies that can prevent viral infection, and to attack several points on the virus so that mutants won’t “escape” treatment, he added. “What you want is a cocktail of antibodies that target different domains on the virus so escape is less likely in treatment.”
On August 21, 2014, the WHO approved a few untested treatments, including ZMapp, whose possible side effects on humans are unknown.
On September 2, 2014, it was reported that the experimental drug, ZMapp, recently healed all 18 monkeys infected with Ebola in a study, boosting hopes that the treatment might help fight the outbreak raging through West Africa — once more of it can be made. The monkeys were given the drug three to five days after they were infected with the virus and when most were showing symptoms. That is several days later than any other experimental Ebola treatment tested so far. The drug also completely protected six other monkeys given a slightly different version of it three days after infection in a pilot test. These two studies are the first monkey tests ever done on ZMapp. “For animal data, it’s extremely impressive,” said the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which had a role in the work.
It’s not known how well the drug would work in people, who can take up to 21 days to show symptoms and are not infected the way these monkeys were in a lab.
Several experts said it’s not possible to estimate a window of opportunity for treating people, but that it was encouraging that the animals recovered when treated, even after advanced disease developed. It may not be possible “to estimate a window of opportunity for treating people,” but what they have discovered in Africa by treating actual Ebola patients is that once a patient begins bleeding from every orifice, the chance of survival is extremely slim.
ZMapp is three antibodies that attach to cells infected with Ebola, helping the immune system kill them. In other words, it is a synthetic version of a blood transfusion.
Doctors have said there is no way to know whether ZMapp made a difference or the survivors recovered on their own, as about 45 percent of people infected in this outbreak have.
ZMapp’s maker, Mapp Biopharmaceutical Inc., of San Diego, has said the small supply of the drug is now exhausted and that it will take several months to make more. The drug is grown in tobacco plants and was developed with U.S. government support. It takes about a month to make 20 to 40 doses at a Kentucky plant where the drug is being produced. Officials have said they are looking at other facilities and other ways to ramp up production, and the company is planning for a clinical trial to test ZMapp in people early in 2015.
On September 17, 2014, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, explained the NIAID had begun active human testing of various alternative therapies and experimental drugs to combat Ebola. The effort includes working with Mapp Biopharmaceutical, Inc., to develop MB-003, a combination of three antibodies that has successfully prevented Ebola from developing in monkeys when administered as late as 48 hours after exposure.
ZMapp treatment bottom line —
Would you take a vaccine that is created by infecting mice with Ebola, genetically modifying the antibodies the mice produce, putting them into a bacteria, then infecting a genetically modified tobacco plant to grow ‘plantibodies’, extracting the GMO plantibodies and injecting them into people, made by a company that is partially funded by a eugenicist that thinks vaccines are a great way to reduce the world’s population by 15%, and can’t be sued by anyone that has adverse reactions to the vaccine.
Creating treatments from survivor’s blood —
Is convalescent serum unproven as the WHO says? It’s a treatment technique that’s been used effectively for 124 years, called passive immunity.
Some survivors of the Ebola outbreak have received blood from other survivors of Ebola, in the form of blood plasma antibodies, as part of their treatment for Ebola. In turn, some of these survivors believed the treatment was so effective that they donated plasma antibodies to other victims, and most of them survived as well.
In Africa, demand for survivors’ blood has created a “black market” that the WHO says needs to be shut down with help from governments. Months ago the WHO said the treatment was “unproven” but “promising,” and that they needed to “look into” it someday. Yet, on September 5, the WHO said that blood transfusions from survivors of the disease should be the immediate priority among all the experimental therapies under consideration for this outbreak.
As mainstream media casts doubt on convalescent serum’s effectiveness, it promotes the GMO drug ZMapp as a “miracle.” ZMapp was created by a small company backed by DARPA, the military industrial complex’s bio-weapons bureaucracy, and Big Tobacco. Mass production of the GMO drug is ramping up with funding from the Gates Foundation, and the bio-pharmaceutical industry.
Which begs the questions: why develop a GMO imitation if the human version is “unproven,” and why delay treatment when a large supply of convalescent serum is now available from survivors?
ZMapp imitates convalescent serum’s method to fight Ebola — antibodies. Unlike a vaccine where an antigen (usually a dead or weakened version of the disease) is supposed to provoke the body’s immune system into producing antibodies over time to prevent the disease, convalescent serum supplies antibodies by a transfusion of the plasma (serum) of a survivor (convalescent). Those antibodies can begin fighting the disease immediately, jump starting or boosting the person’s immune response.
The method is called passive immunity and it has a long history, all the way back to the 1880’s. Blood plasma antibodies were used in the early 1940s to prevent and treat measles and hepatitis. Techniques for large scale fractionation of plasma to separate antibodies were funded by the U.S. government as World War II preparation.
Convalescent serum uses human antibodies of survivors. ZMapp uses mouse antibodies that have been genetically modified and then grown in genetically modified tobacco plants. A large supply of real human antibodies is already on hand from thousands of Ebola survivors. Testing donor blood for disease and creating a donor registry to match blood types could be done immediately, but the plan is to pursue the artificial patented approach.
In contrast to experimental GMO drugs, as long as convalescent serum is matched for blood type and screened for disease, there are no dangerous side effects. Even though convalescent serum looks promising, it is not a magic cure either. Palliative care, keeping the patients hydrated and electrolytes balanced, are major factors in survival. The patients physical condition and the health of their immune system is even more important.
If convalescent serum has been used successfully for treatment for 124 years and highly valued by Ebola survivors, is not known to be effective, then why is the government mimicking it with GMO plantibodies? Even with a 70% casualty rate, there are thousands of survivors who could become donors. All that’s needed for immediate deployment of the treatment is a donor registry and testing. But western governments and NGO’s are going to focus on a “magic” solution that won’t be available for months, fiddling as Africa burns down.
On November 24, 2014, it was announced that Emory University Hospital will begin stockpiling blood plasma from Ebola survivors, treated with a pathogen inactivation system that’s never been used before in the United States, according to Cerus Corporation, the company that developed the technology. Treatments made from survivor’s blood are enriched in antibodies that can help to fight off the disease, but there is also a potential that the blood could carry other diseases, like malaria, that are common in west Africa. The new system will kill off any extra contaminants that may be lurking in this potentially live-saving serum.
Cerus Corporation’s Intercept system will also be used in a Gates Foundation-funded study of Ebola treatments in West Africa. The pathogen-killing molecule at the heart of the system is amotosalen, part of a class of three-ringed molecules called psoralens. They’re the compounds in lime that cause what some doctors call “Mexican beer dermatitis”: Get a squirt of the citrus on your skin when you push it into your Corona, spend a few hours on the beach in the sunlight, and the molecules interact with the UV rays to give you a nasty rash.
Amotosalen doesn’t cause dermatitis, but it works by the same mechanism. When technicians add it to blood plasma, it nestles in the middle of DNA and RNA helices, linking the bases on either side. Then, activated by a burst of UV light, it irreversibly bonds to those bases—so the genetic material can’t replicate any more. Pathogens, inactivated. Gee, what can possibly go wrong with that?
Europe has long used blood purification systems—Intercept was first approved eight years ago, and there are other techniques, too. But the FDA has been slow to approve the same technology in the US, mostly, it seems, for lack of demand. Last week the agency approved the technique for restricted use in treating the plasma of Ebola survivors. What are the “other techniques”? Maybe they would be safer.
“There’s an increasing realization that it’s challenging to be proactive about epidemics with our current testing paradigm,” said Cerus’ president and chief executive officer. We may be confronting enough new pathogens in this rapidly changing climate of ours that inactivation will become necessary to keep our blood supply safe. If so, the FDA is ready; and they’re likely to decide whether to approve the Intercept system to treat all donated plasma in the next several months.
So, the Gates Foundation is funding the ZMapp treatment as well as using (and paying for, presumably) the same system that will be purifying blood plasma from Ebola survivors. This is how the globalists get so rich — they manufacture a crisis, and then play both sides to make twice as much money. Although in this case, the goal could be to add something very dangerous to the blood plasma to make everyone afraid to use it, so people will instead beg for ZMapp, or some other experimental treatment, that the globalists will control.
WHAT IF IT ISN’T EBOLA?
It’s very difficult to think that governments would intentionally harm their citizens for monetary gain, but that could explain what’s behind all the Ebola hysteria that we are constantly being subjected to. Consider the following list of some of those that would benefit from an Ebola epidemic:
A health crisis would provide a distraction to all of government’s scandals, such as funding ISIS; the VA waiting for veterans to die so they don’t have to treat them; letting illegal aliens into the country to vote for a permanent Democratic majority to complete the destruction of the United States; US government alliance with the Sinaloa drug cartel; NSA spying; etc., etc., etc.
Pharmaceutical companies increase their revenue through the sale of vaccines.
The public is further conditioned to accept vaccines, because fear equals control.
Mega-corporations and financiers gain more control over the rich resources of West Africa.
The US government establishes a military outpost in West Africa, the purpose of which is to enhance and expand its operations on the African continent. Its main economic competitor in Africa is China.
The CDC and the WHO enhance their influence, justify their budgets, try to appear as the protectors of humanity.
Ebola researchers grab new grant monies, seek promotions, enhanced status, awards.
The diagnostic-testing industry cashes in, because the use of irrelevant, useless, and unreliable diagnostic tests for Ebola sets the stage for future situations in which thousands or even millions of false positive tests invent, out of thin air, so-called epidemics in which viruses actually play no role at all. Just like now.
The “war against the epidemic” is quite similar to the “war against terrorism,” and involves the same loss of privacy and freedom.
On September 19, 2014, it was reported that the CDC owns the illness and all variants known as “Ebola.” Since the CDC owns Ebola, anyone attempting to treat Ebola, within the United States, must pay a royalty to the CDC. The data trail also reveals that NIH owns the Ebola-related vaccines developed by Crucell and these vaccines were clinically tested on two groups of human volunteers in 2006! This means that an Ebola vaccine has been available for eight years rendering the present stories about vaccine development by Monsanto and GSK to be a cover story. One of the experimental vaccines being tested is manufactured by Janssen Corporation, subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson/Bavarian Nordic, but it will be using Crucell’s monovalent human adenovirus-based Ebola vaccine. This vaccine is exempt from legal prosecution due to adverse reactions experienced by anyone receiving the vaccine.
We also now know that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has put $560 million into the Global Fund which will be in charge of globally distributing and managing the disbursement of not only the Ebola vaccine, but the soon-to-be released HIV and TB vaccines as well. The fact that the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) is involved suggests that either the Ebola virus, or the vaccine, or both, have been weaponized.
How about a “common sense” quiz. Do you think that these aforementioned entities are going to expect a return on their collective investments? If the obvious answer is “yes”, then it is a foregone conclusion that millions of Americans are going to be victims of this Hegelian Dialectic and subsequently infected with the virus in order to set the stage for enormous profits derived from the implementation of the mandatory vaccine and the forced incarceration for the non-compliant.
The Obama administration has dusted off an old Executive Order (13295) and updated the EO and turned benign health conditions into a matter of “national security” and those afflicted with these benign health conditions will be incarcerated and isolated against their will. The later interpretation of Executive Order 13295 finds that anyone with asthma, temporary upper respiratory illness or pneumonia can, and will be, quarantined. Asthma? Asthma is not contagious in any form. It is genetic, but not contagious. However, an estimated 10% of the population has asthma in some form. Considering the fact that it is not contagious but widespread, it is likely that this Executive Order provides a means for the administration to eliminate a chunk of dissidents by enforcing the asthma, upper respiratory infection and pneumonia patient quarantine policies of this executive order. None of these conditions have anything to do with Ebola, however, the potential for political abuse should be apparent. Additionally, all health records are now sent to the IRS under Obamacare policies and procedures. This is strongly suggestive of prior planning along these lines.
DHS will be in charge of the coming quarantines and martial law implementation. Yes, this means that the military will be subservient to the DHS dictates. The simple reason for this development is that Obama trusts the DHS a lot more that he trusts the military.
In the upcoming martial law scenario, the use of foreign, UN troops will be employed. The ground work for this development has already taken place.
The extra-constitutional “agreements” (that means illegal agreements) were signed in Washington, D.C., at the fourth annual meeting of the illegally created “U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission Working Group on Emergency Situations.” This extra-governmental organization, formed under the Obama administration, is one of almost two dozen similar “working groups” bringing together top U.S. and Russian officials. These two bodies are cooperating on everything from the drug war and agriculture to terror, science, “rule of law” (could that be code for martial law?), health, environment, energy, nuclear issues, education, culture, media, business, arms control, and more, according to the U.S. State Department. The Senate has not ratified any of the international deals, as required by the Constitution of the United States. And as such, this is an illegal agreement. However, this is not just an illegal agreement, IT CONSTITUTES TREASON AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
The agreement calls for Russian troops to engage in policing activities at American public events on American soil which has already taken place in Colorado Springs, CO. An occupation force is being mobilized.
Also, in June of 2014, there were reports which exposed the presence of UN military vehicle sightings around the United States. The appearance of these vehicles is no coincidence. Is it possible that the UN (e.g. Russian soldiers) will be used to counter any dissident American military response?
On July 22, 2014, Kent Brantly “woke up feeling feverish. … A rapid field blood test confirmed the infection in both of them after they had become ill with fever, vomiting and diarrhea,” wrote CNN. Thus, Brantly had allegedly been struck by Ebola on Tuesday July 22, 2014. Also according to CNN “Brantly didn’t receive [the ZMapp cure] until he’d been sick for nine days.” Nine days would be on either July 30 or July 31 depending on one’s perspective on the time frame. That would be impossible since the Phoenix Air flight only took off on July 31, allegedly. At that time Brantly was still supposed to be in Africa waiting for that flight.
Neither of the two, Brantly and Writebol, were transported in the proper manner, as should be expected in the world’s most intense police state.
On September 20, 2014, it was reported that the flight that allegedly picked up Kent Brantly never arrived in Liberia or anywhere else in Africa on the dates as published and advertised by the media. That flight, KVPC – LPLA / TER, with airplane N173PA – a Gulfstream 3 (twin-jet) operated by Phoenix Air – departed at Cartersville, GA, on Thursday July 31, 2014, as stated by several media outlets. It flew for 2 hours and 14 minutes that day, only to turn around half way down the flight, and headed back to where it departed in Cartersville.
There are those who claim that the flight had been rescheduled and renamed that day and was now flight PHA333 Gray Bird. That is, of course, an easily proven lie because PHA333 Gray Bird was a 44-minute flight on Tuesday August 5, 2014.
On October 17, 2014, it was reported that according to the Liberian Daily Observer of August 2, one of the persons poisoning the water supply in Liberia on purpose had been arrested for trying to put “formaldehyde into a well.” Allegedly there are more such paid agents in Liberia. “The man also alleged that some water companies, particularly those bagging mineral water to sell, are also involved. The poison, he said, produces Ebola-like symptoms and subsequently kills people.
The Observer had previously been informed that people dressed as nurses were going into communities with ‘Ebola Vaccines‘. Once injected, it reportedly produces Ebola-like symptoms and sends victims into a coma. Shortly thereafter, victims expire. Communities are now reportedly chasing vaccine peddlers out of their communities. After 10 children reportedly died from the ‘vaccine’ in Bensonville, the peddlers were reportedly chased out of the community upon their next visit. It is possible that the ‘vaccine’ is/was composed of the same formaldehyde-water mixture. There have been reports from families whose loved ones’ organs were missing upon return of the bodies to the families. Families suspect an organ trafficking operation is capitalizing on the outbreak of the Ebola virus in Liberia.”
On August 17, 2014, AllAfrica wrote that a water source in Monrovia had been put out of service after locals suspected that “somebody had poured a deadly chemical into the water.”
“One of the person spoken to assumed that the lid was removed by somebody who may have intentionally dropped deadly chemical (Formaldehyde) in the water as other people had done in other places, according to reports during recent times. The reports indicate that some persons were caught while pouring the dead body’s preservation chemical (Formaldehyde) into public Wells. … to cause mass death that would be blamed on the Ebola virus.”
The reports about the water supply being poisoned in Liberia, victims having organs missing and Red Cross vaccines that cause Ebola-like symptoms perfectly explain now why the WHO representatives “had their throats slit“ last month, September 2014, in Guinea. Now we finally have the answer to that particular question too.
What is happening to the healthcare workers at an unprecedented rate?
How in the world is it possible that more than 170 health workers have been infected by the Ebola virus? That is the one question about Ebola that nobody can seem to answer. The World Health Organization is reporting this as a fact, but no explanation is given as to why this is happening. We are just assured that Ebola “is not airborne” and that getting infected “requires close contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person”. If this is true, then how have more than 170 health workers caught the disease? These workers are dressed head to toe in suits that are specifically designed to prevent the spread of the virus. So how is this happening? I could understand a handful of “mistakes” by health workers, but this is unlike anything that we have ever seen in the history of infectious diseases. These health workers take extraordinary precautions to keep from getting the virus. If it is spreading so easily to them, what chance is the general population going to have?
There has been an unprecedented number of healthcare workers getting sick and dying from Ebola while treating patients in West Africa. How do we know they really have Ebola and not something else? We don’t because all we know is what we’re told, and that’s that the healthcare workers have Ebola.
What could it be other than Ebola? How about physiological shock, huge and sudden dehydration, and more from the hazmat suits the healthcare workers have to wear. In an interview, a doctor revealed how she wills herself to feel safe inside a boiling hot air-sealed Hazmat suit. Doctors and nurses lose up to five litres (5.28 quarts) in sweat during an hour-long shift in the suits and have to spend two hours rehydrating after. To minimize the risk of infection they have to wear thick rubber boots that come up to their knees, an impermeable body suit, gloves, a face mask, a hood and goggles to ensure no air at all can touch their skin.”
At their camp they go through multiple decontaminations which includes spraying chlorine on their shoes. The doctor added that, “We would like to keep a [patient] visit between 45 minutes and one hour, but now, we’re stretching it to almost two hours. We put ourselves through a very strong physiological stress when we’re using personal protection gear. We sweat, we’re losing water; we’re getting hotter and it wreaks havoc on the body. Our own endurance starts to wear down.”
In another interview, a different doctor described working in protective gear: “The heat of the suits is quickly overwhelming, as your goggles steam up and you feel the sweat dripping underneath. And the smell of chlorine is intense.”
Imagine losing five quarts of water from your body in an hour, while trapped inside a bulky hazmat suit, and while treating a patient trying to do everything he can to escape the clinic. Imagine needing two hours after you climb out of your suit to rehydrate. Then you go back for more. Of course you also decontaminate yourself with toxic chemicals, including chlorine, which you are also inhaling, even though it’s a highly toxic compound, while you’re inside the hazmat suit, and while you’re approaching shock from loss of all those body fluids.
Since the healthcare workers are trying to treat as many patients as possible, do you think they just do one hour at a time inside the hazmat torture, or is it more likely they try to do two hours. How many quarts of body fluid do you then lose in one shift?
Perhaps this explains some, but certainly not all, of the deaths among the healthcare workers.
The outbreak of Ebola virus disease in west Africa is unprecedented in many ways, including the high proportion of doctors, nurses, and other health care workers who have been infected.
On August 25, 2014, it was reported that there has been a 50% death rate among health care workers that contracted Ebola in Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone, with more than 120 workers dying out of the more than 240 workers that contracted Ebola.
Several factors have contributed to the high number of infected medical staff. These factors include shortages of personal protective equipment or its improper use, far too few medical staff for such a large outbreak, and the compassion that causes medical staff to work in isolation wards far beyond the number of hours recommended as safe.
In the past, some Ebola outbreaks became visible only after transmission was amplified in a health care setting and doctors and nurses fell ill. However, once the Ebola virus was identified and proper protective measures were put in place, cases among medical staff dropped dramatically. Most of the recent Ebola outbreaks have occurred in remote areas, in a part of Africa that is more familiar with this disease, and with chains of transmission that were easier to track and break.
The current outbreak is different. Capital cities as well as remote rural areas are affected, vastly increasing opportunities for undiagnosed cases to have contact with hospital staff. Neither doctors nor the public are familiar with the disease. Intense fear rules entire villages and cities.
Several infectious diseases endemic in the region, like malaria, typhoid fever, and Lassa fever, mimic the initial symptoms of Ebola virus disease. Patients infected with these diseases will often need emergency care. Their doctors and nurses may see no reason to suspect Ebola and see no need to take protective measures.
In many cases, medical staff are at risk because no protective equipment is available – not even gloves and face masks. Even in dedicated Ebola wards, personal protective equipment is often scarce or not being properly used. Training in proper use is absolutely essential, as are strict procedures for infection prevention and control.
In addition, personal protective equipment is hot and cumbersome, especially in a tropical climate, and this severely limits the time that doctors and nurses can work in an isolation ward. Some doctors work beyond their physical limits, trying to save lives in 12-hour shifts, every day of the week. Staff who are exhausted are more prone to make mistakes.
The WHO said on August 27, 2014, that 120 health care workers have died in the Ebola outbreak, and twice that number have been infected.
Public health experts say several factors are to blame, including a shortage of protective gear and improper use of the gear they do have. The fact that the disease has killed so many people working to care for infected patients is making it increasingly hard to combat the virus in West Africa, WHO said. “It depletes one of the most vital assets during the control of any outbreak. WHO estimates that in the three hardest-hit countries, only one to two doctors are available to treat 100,000 people, and these doctors are heavily concentrated in urban areas.”
On September 26, 2014, it was reported that the protective gear that healthcare workers must wear, can be tolerated for only a few hours in West Africa’s sultry climate. By one calculation, a person in the suit sweats away 2.5 pounds of water per hour. Wearers may notice their minds getting foggy, according to a staffer for a non-profit medical company that’s running an Ebola treatment unit in Liberia.
Is this Ebola outbreak actually a bioweapon instead of a viral epidemic?
In 1975, the Biological Weapons Convention Treaty, went into effect banning biowarfare experimentation. Washington placed its biowarfare laboratories in the African countries that did not sign the treaty.
Concerns that the deadly Ebola virus can be used as a biological weapon are far from being groundless, Russia’s Federal Medical-Biological Agency (FMBA) said. “Such possibility exists,” said the head of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the FMBA’s Institution of Advanced Training at a press conference on August 8, 2014.
“Actually, this virus can be used in the form of a spray, which can lead to very big trouble,” the disease expert is cited as saying by the RIA-Novosti news agency. It’s very hard to track down efforts to create bioweapons, despite the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in place since 1972, he said.
Russia’s former chief medical officer said that he can’t rule out the possibility that the Western African outbreak is suspicious. “I am concerned about the prevalence and pathogenicity of the situation, which is too much even for Ebola. Too many people are dying. I don’t rule out that there’s something artificial here… What is happening with Ebola there, could there also be something man-made about it?” he said.
According to a study published on August 28, 2014, the Ebola virus currently sweeping through West Africa has mutated repeatedly during the outbreak, a fact that could hinder diagnosis and treatment of the devastating disease, according to scientists who have genetically sequenced the virus in scores of victims.
In a collaboration led by scientists at Harvard University and aided by officials at Sierra Leone’s health ministry, researchers sequenced Ebola virus genomes from 78 patients beginning in the early days of the outbreak this spring. Those 99 samples, which includes some patients being tested more than once, suggested that the outbreak began with a single human infection before spreading rapidly, like a spark that grows into a wildfire.
Ebola’s arrival in Sierra Leone in May started with a funeral. A young pregnant woman tested positive for the virus and was treated at Kenema Government Hospital. Health workers who traced her contacts discovered that she and more than a dozen other women recently had attended the burial of a traditional healer who had been treating Ebola patients near the Sierra Leone-Guinea border. All of them had been infected.
“They realized she was not an isolated case,” according to an associate professor at Harvard whose lab sequenced the Ebola genomes and quickly made public the data earlier this summer. The genomic sequencing also offers hints as to how the Ebola “Zaire” strain at the heart of the current outbreak — one of five types of Ebola virus known to infect humans — likely ended up in West Africa in the first place. Researchers said the data suggests that the virus spread from an animal host, possibly bats, and that diverged around 2004 from an Ebola strain in central Africa, where previous outbreaks have occurred. “We don’t actually know where the virus has been since then,” said the professor, referring to the time between 2004 and when the virus resurfaced earlier this year. “We’re trying to piece together an historical record.”
The study also details hundreds of genetic mutations that make the current Ebola outbreak different from any in the past. Some of those changes have the potential to affect the accuracy of diagnostic tests or the effectiveness of vaccines and treatments under development for the disease. “We’ve uncovered more than 300 genetic clues about what sets this outbreak apart from previous outbreaks,” one of the study’s co-authors and an infectious disease researcher at Harvard, said in an announcement about the findings. “Although we don’t know whether these differences are related to the severity of the current outbreak, by sharing these data with the research community, we hope to speed up our understanding of this epidemic and support global efforts to contain it.”“We’re left with a situation where if, in fact, this thing smolders on and on, we know mutations will accumulate,” he said. “And that has its own set of problems. We’ve really got to get this thing shut off.”
On September 22, 2014, it was reported that over the past decade, the U. S. government has awarded tens of millions of federal dollars to private firms to develop drugs to treat or prevent Ebola.
In 2004, Congress under President Bush passed Project Bioshield, a $5-billion project to purchase and develop vaccines that would be used in the event of a bioterrorist attack. In 2013, Congress passed the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act, which reauthorized more federal funding for the BioShield Project.
Among the original grantees are firms that received millions of dollars to develop treatment and a vaccine for Ebola.
Apath LLC, a New York-based private technology and virology company, received an 18-month, $1.35 million grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health for “Therapeutics for an Ebola virus.” Apath’s president and chief scientific officer said, “The goal here is to find drugs that inhibit the virus. We’re able to identify inhibitors using partial viral genomes that are able to replicate within cells but cannot be transmitted.”
Another Project Bioshield grantee, Crucel, has worked with government agencies, including the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to develop an Ebola vaccine. In 2008, Crucel secured an additional award from the NIAID for options worth up to $40 million to advance the development of an Ebola vaccine. The company reported its vaccine has “been shown to completely protect monkeys against the virus with a single dose.” In 2006, the vaccine entered Phase I clinical trials, with a study of two groups of 16 volunteers showing “safety and immunogenicity at the doses evaluated.”
Crucell’s parent company, Johnson & Johnson, is continuing its work on an Ebola vaccine with a partnership with Bavarian Nordic. Their experimental vaccine will be tested in January 2015.
On September 26, 2014, it was reported that during the last 10 years, the U.S. government has made available $5.6 billion, plus an additional $2.8 billion between 2014 and 2018, to, among other objectives, buy up vaccines and other medical countermeasures (MCM) as part of the US government’s Project BioShield “Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness” policies and objectives. The Project was established in 2004 and reauthorized in 2013 to last until 2018.
The policies and objectives can be verified from the texts relating to H.R.307 – Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 and the developments that we have been witnessing lately.
The following excerpts speak for themselves:
- Sec. 302. … To improve our nation’s response to emergencies, this section would also authorize the FDA to do the following: (1) extend the expiration date for MCMs (medical countermeasures) intended to be used for emergency responses; (2) grant waivers of current Good Manufacturing Practices; (3) authorize emergency dispensing of MCMs during an actual emergency without an individual prescription if permitted under State law or permitted by an order of the HHS Secretary; (4) work with other HHS agencies to create and issue emergency use instructions concerning a product’s conditions of use; and (5) authorize FDA to waive a product’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy if necessary.
- Sec. 305. Regulatory Management Plans – This section would require FDA to establish a process for frequent scientific feedback and interaction with those sponsors who’s MCMs have been procured through the Special Reserve Fund (SRF) in order to facilitate the approval, clearance and licensure of the MCMs. Under the section, FDA also would have the authority to apply this process to MCMs that are not security countermeasures.
Through Project BioShield the U. S. government can buy up any and all vaccines or MCMs it deems appropriate and suitable for its anti (bio)terrorism strategies and policies, both domestic and foreign and what better time to address the cookie jar than during a fraudulent Ebola outbreak in Africa that has been declared a threat to world peace and security…
Project BioShield also allows the U. S. government to provide the developers of these MCMs with cash for the further development of their agents. A fund of $5.6 billion plus an additional $2.8 billion needs results, whether successful or not. That’s where all the experimental vaccines come into play.
The developers of these MCMs to combat Ebola, and the U. S. military complex now have legal and full access to all the funds of Project BioShield. That’s why we have seen and read those fabricated stories of patients miraculously recovering FAST from ZMapp, which doesn’t even work, according to Forbes.
It doesn’t matter whether these MCMs work or not, and the manufacturers, the U. S. government, and the United Nations know very well that these MCMs are worthless. The goal now is simply to buy up all this junk that can also be tested unconditionally by anyone involved in fighting the fake Ebola outbreak.
Given that the U. S. bio warfare department has their affiliates working on-scene in the area where it allegedly all started, it should not come as a surprise that that is what they were doing there: TESTING. Likely, things got out of control and they needed a cover for their mess and they needed protection for the slaughter they had created.
The H.R. 307 bill makes it perfectly clear that a number of waivers are available that allow the testing and use of ALL, and therefore even possibly deadly agents (not necessarily MCMs), without anyone ever being brought to justice in the event that populations and individual human test objects die along the way. That’s also why the UN had earlier declared the outbreak an “international health crisis.” That’s what triggers and allows the full deployment of Project BioShield, including all the features that will protect the U.S. government and the pharmaceutical corporations from any claims made by victims from their MCM test frenzy.
It is neither a surprise nor a coincidence that U. S. bio warfare was/is present in the very epicenter of the outbreak, an epicenter that has remained miraculously free of Ebola, according to the BBC.
So, in short, the Ebola fraud allows the procurement of any and all medical countermeasures by the U. S. government – whether or not safe and effective. Medical corporations get to stick their hands DEEP into the royal cookie jar of Project BioShield along the way, and no one will ever be brought in front of a judge for the crimes that have been committed in the process.
On October 18, 2014, a leading U. S. scientist warned that the Ebola virus could be mutating to become even more contagious. A scientist at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease believes the current Ebola outbreak may be caused by an infection that spreads more easily than it did before.
The doctor explained that his team, who are working in the epicentre of the crisis in the Liberian capital of Monrovia, are seeing that the viral loads in Ebola patients are much higher than they are used to seeing. In an interview, he said that, “We are using tests now that weren’t using in the past, but there seems to be a belief that the virus load is higher in these patients [today] than what we have seen before. If true, that’s a very different bug. I have a field team in Monrovia. They are running [tests]. They are telling me that viral loads are coming up very quickly and really high, higher than they are used to seeing. It may be that the virus burns hotter and quicker.”
The head of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, a prominent public health scientist and a nationally recognized biosecurity expert, said that the Head of Special Pathogens at Canada’s health agency, a top Ebola virologist, has found that the current strain of Ebola appears to be much worse than any strain seen before … and that the current virus may be more likely to spread through aerosols than strains which scientists have previously encountered.
On October 20, 2014, it was reported that a secret bioweapons project called Project Coast was launched by Dr. Wouter Basson, and operated out of South Africa during the Apartheid era in the early 1980’s.
The project’s goal was the development of biological and chemical agents that would either kill or sterilize the black population and assassinate political enemies. Among the agents developed were Marburg and Ebola viruses.
Basson is surrounded by cloak and dagger intrigue, as he told Pretoria High court in South Africa that “The local CIA agent in Pretoria threatened me with death on the sidewalk of the American Embassy in Schoeman Street.” According to a 2001 article in The New Yorker magazine, the American Embassy in Pretoria was “terribly concerned” that Basson would reveal deep connections between Project Coast and the United States.
Bioweapons expert Jeanne Guillemin writes in her book Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism, “The project‘s growth years were from 1982 to 1987, when it developed a range of biological agents (such as those for anthrax, cholera, and the Marburg and Ebola viruses and for botulinum toxin)…“
Basson’s bioweapons program officially ended in 1994, but there has been no independent verification that the pathogens created were ever destroyed. The order to destroy them went directly to Dr. Basson. According to the Wall Street Journal (a CFR corp), “The integrity of the process rested solely on Dr. Basson’s honesty.”
Dr. Timothy Stamps, Minister of Health of Zimbabwe, suspected that his country was under biological attack during the time that Basson was operating. Stamps told PBS Frontline in 1998 that “The evidence is very clear that these were not natural events. Whether they were caused by some direct or deliberate inoculation or not, is the question we have to answer.”
Stamps specifically named the Ebola and Marburg viruses as suspect. Stamps thinks that his country was being used as a testing ground for weaponized Ebola.
“I’m talking about anthrax and cholera in particular, but also a couple of viruses that are not endemic to Zimbabwe [such as] the Ebola type virus and, we think also, the Marburg virus. We wonder whether in fact these are not associated with biological warfare against this country during the hostilities… Ebola was along the line of the Zambezi [River], and I suspect that this may have been an experiment to see if a new virus could be used to directly infect people.”
On October 21, 2014, it was reported that two scientists say Ebola originated In a U. S. Bio-warfare lab. They believe that Ebola is a genetically modified organism developed in U. S. biowarfare laboratories in Africa. A notice from the clinical trial service of the U. S. National Institutes of Health, says the U. S. Government and Pharmaceutical corporations have been conducting Ebola tests on humans.
This is official confirmation of Dr. Francis Boyle and Dr. Cyril Broderick’s reports that the U. S. government has conducted Ebola experiments. It appears that the test consists of giving an Ebola vaccine and then exposing the unaware person to Ebola, apparently an engineered version for bio-warfare. Whatever the tests are, it is clear that Boyle and Broderick in their articles are correct that experimentation with Ebola by the U. S. government is underway.
Since this strain of Ebola is different from all previous strains, including the other current Ebola outbreak in Zaire, how did Ebola get to Western Africa? If it was passed on by animals, why was there no outbreak in the thousands of miles it would have to have traveled to get to West Africa?
As of October 23, 2014, there are three bio-weapons labs in Africa, including the Kenema lab in Sierra Leone, one of the three countries being ravaged by Ebola.
There have been accidents at bio-weapons labs in the past, including in Russia, where some workers died. Other workers didn’t die because their immune systems were strong enough to fight the disease off.
A bio-weapons expert reported that the National Institutes of Health has mixed the Ebola virus with the common cold virus. The government of Sierra Leone has shut down the Kenema lab because they believed people were coming down with Ebola after receiving vaccinations under the supervision of Tulane University (located in New Orleans, LA).
In October 2014, the White House said they were going to cut funding for risky biological study called gain of function, such as attempts to create a more contagious version of the lethal H5N1 avian (bird) influenza to learn which mutations made it that way. According to the expert, this is the government admitting that was what they were doing at those labs in West Africa.
We are told that DARPA’s work on weaponizing viruses is strictly defensive and for public safety. From its creation, the CIA has worked with criminals to develop biological and chemical weapons for the U. S. government. This is what Operation Paperclip was about, where German war criminals were brought to the U. S. for what they could add to the U. S.’s biological and chemical warfare efforts. Japanese war criminals were brought in and given immunity as well. One Japanese general, for instance, supervised experiments where researchers injected tetanus into the heels of prisoners; left naked men outdoors in 40 degrees below zero temperatures until their limbs froze solid as rock; put prisoners in glass rooms and sprayed them with anthrax, cholera, typhoid, plague-infested fleas, and other diseases to calculate the minimum lethal dose; tied prisoners to a stake and then exploded germ bombs overhead, while soldiers wearing protective gear timed their deaths with stop watches. There were between 3,000 and 6,000 men like that that formed the basis of the U. S. biological warfare units.
In our present situation, is Ebola the problem, or is it the vaccine that is being fast-tracked at an astonishing pace to get it to market? The vaccine is using a modified chimpanzee cold virus. What could possibly go wrong?
On October 24, 2014, it was reported that in 1996, a lab technician drawing blood from Ebola-infected animals in a secret military laboratory accidentally cut herself. She didn’t report it, but soon after got sick and ultimately died. She was quickly buried, according to one account, in a “sack filled with calcium hypochlorite,” or powdered bleach. The incident occurred inside a restricted Russian military lab that was once part of the Soviet Union’s biological weapons program.
The lab fatality incident, and a similar one in 2004, offer a rare glimpse into a 35-year history of Soviet and Russian interest in the Ebola virus. The research began amid intense secrecy with an ambitious effort to assess Ebola’s potential as a biological weapon, and it later included attempts to manipulate the virus’s genetic coding, U. S. officials and researchers say. Those efforts ultimately failed as Soviet scientists stumbled against natural barriers that make Ebola poorly suited for biowarfare.
The bioweapons program officially ended in 1991, but Ebola research continued in Defense Ministry laboratories, where it remains largely invisible despite years of appeals by U. S. officials to allow greater transparency.
At least four military labs have remained off-limits to any outside scrutiny since the end of the Cold War, even as civilian-run institutions adopted more transparent policies and permitted collaborations with foreign researchers and investors, U. S. officials and weapons experts say.
Enhancing the threat is the facilities’ collection of deadly germs, which presumably includes the strains Soviet scientists tried to manipulate to make them hardier, deadlier and more difficult to detect. “We have ample accounts from defectors that these are not just strains from nature, but strains that have been deliberately enhanced,” said a senior fellow at a research institute in California.
On October 24, 2014, it was revealed that a bioweapons expert believes the Ebola outbreak in West Africa was created in U. S. bioweapons labs in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, West Africa. According to Dr. Francis Boyle, the doctor that drafted the biological weapons anti-terrorism act, that was passed unanimously by Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush (a CFR and TC), what is going on in West Africa currently is a result of what they do at the U. S. biosafety Level 4 laboratories in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, the three West African countries with the highest concentration of Ebola victims. These labs do biological warfare work, including genetic engineering.
The doctor thinks the Ebola virus is three different bioweapons —
The first bioweapon is hoof-and-mouth disease that was genetically engineered with Ebola at the University of Texas in Galveston. This sounds like the BPSC1001 vaccine made by Newlink Genetics and Merck with assistance from the University of Texas at Galveston, which uses the virus for hoof-and-mouth disease, but removes one of its genes to allegedly render the virus harmless. Remember, on December 9, 2014, the Health and Human Services Secretary announced that this vaccine is protected under law and no one can sue if they have adverse affects after receiving the vaccine.
The second bioweapon, created by the NIH, which is notorious for doing biological warfare along with the CDC, is a genetically modified organism (GMOs) involving enhanced lethality Ebola together with the common cold virus. The NIH is working with the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline. The GlaxoSmithKline company has been in Mali testing its Ebola vaccine on volunteers. Coincidentally, Mali just reported its first case of Ebola. This sounds like GlaxoSmithKline’s Recombinant Replication Deficient Chimpanzee Adenovirus Type 3-Vectored Ebola Zaire Vaccine known as ChAd3-EBO-Z, which is made from the chimpanzee cold virus. Remember, on December 9, 2014, the Health and Human Services Secretary announced that this vaccine is protected under law and no one can sue if they have adverse affects after receiving the vaccine.
The third bioweapon is genetically engineered enhanced Ebola together with the flu virus, which would make it more contagious than the other two bioweapons. This sounds like the Ad26.ZEBOV/MVA-BN-Filo vaccine manufactured by Janssen Corporation, subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson/Bavarian Nordic, which is made from a monovalent human adenovirus-based Ebola vaccine, with a multivalent Modified Vaccinia ankara (MVA-BN) Filovirus vaccine in a two-shot, prime-boost regimen, designed to elicit lasting immune responses in recipients. Remember, on December 9, 2014, the Health and Human Services Secretary announced that this vaccine is protected under law and no one can sue if they have adverse affects after receiving the vaccine.
According to a report released by the Army in October 2014, they believe the Ebola virus will go airborne in temperatures below 45 degrees.
When bioweapons are created, remember that the bioweapon comes first, and then the vaccine. When they say they are testing vaccines with GMOs, that means they also have the weapon. Also, a fundamental rule of biological warfare is that you do not launch a biological warfare attack on anyone unless you have developed a vaccine by using the same technology.
According to an article appearing in the New York Times, it appears the vaccines have already been developed and produced, but on a small scale. It’s not true when you hear that big pharma would not come in and develop a vaccine because of the cost, because since 9/11, the government has spent $79 billion on bioweapons technology.
The vaccines that are currently being tested have both been patented, with the NIH/CDC holding the patent on the technology behind the Ebola cold virus vaccine. Since the vaccines are patented, the companies can charge whatever they want for the vaccines. The New York Times article sounds like the vaccines do work and already exist. The question is, will something else be added to the vaccines?
On October 27, 2014, it was reported that Ebola is a race-specific bioweapon targeted at reducing the Black population, because they have been able to isolate race-specific genetic markers in the genetic code. The people behind the Ebola epidemic are transhumanists, which means they hate people and want to eliminate them.
There have been more than 60 scientists, molecular biologists, virologists, and biological weapons experts killed in the last 10 years, including a scientist who had developed a universal antidote to all viruses. Why? It’s all about control. What is their goal? Forced vaccinations and martial law, and ultimately taking away healthcare in order to maximize the reduction of the population. Has Obamacare increased healthcare benefits, or reduced them?
All of the outbreaks of Ebola we will see around the United States are tests of the virulency of the virus. Anyone that survives the virus because their immune system was strong enough to fight off the virus will become an enemy.
On October 27, 2014, it was reported that at the beginning of the Ebola outbreak, we were told that this is a different strain of Ebola. There have now been more than 10,000 cases of Ebola infection worldwide. That’s more than four times the number of people that contracted Ebola in the previous 32 outbreaks combined.
Here is an interesting quote from the Army Times: Viruses like Ebola have been of interest to the Pentagon since the late 1970’s mainly because Ebola and its fellow viruses have high mortality rates, and its stable nature in aerosol make it attractive as a potential biological weapon.
In an interview on October 27, 2014, a researcher and author of books on bioweapons said the current Ebola outbreak is not the hemorrhagic fever Ebola; it is a genetically altered bioweapon that has been patented by the CDC, and they already have the vaccines waiting to distribute. There has been no independent verification that this is Ebola. It is the Illuminati protocol to mock the people they intend to kill.
The man Obama recently appointed as the Ebola Czar is one of the top eugenicists in the entire world.
Ebola has been weaponized, and it is part of the bioweapons program of the United States, Russia, and China. It is the quintessential weapon of mass destruction. Plus, Ebola has been aerosolized. It has been designed to bind with the chemicals in the chemtrail sprays.
If this were truly Ebola, the response from the CDC and clean-up workers would be totally different.
They are disappearing people as has been reported by doctors around the country.
A molecular geneticist says the current strains of Ebola have sticky ends in their DNA, so they’re designed as a bioweapon to incorporate existing diseases, such as the flu or a cold.
The endgame of the globalists (New World Order) is an increased ability to mutate into all other bioweapons development so that by the year 2025, they will be able to claim that the population of the United States has been lowered to 69 million. There are currently more than 300 million people in the United States.
On October 28, 2014, it was reported that the environmental decay of the Ebola virus and its ability to remain infectious when outside the body of a living host is dependent upon a number of factors including exposure to the Ultraviolet Radiation of sunlight, oxidation by the atmosphere and osmotic stress caused by the ambient humidity in the air.
As part of its offensive biological warfare program, the former U.S.S.R. successfully weaponized large quantities of the Marburg filovirus, a close relative of the Ebola virus. However, Soviet scientists found it difficult to stabilize the aerosol decay rate of concentrated Ebola virus as a small dry particle preparation suitable for offensive aerosol dissemination (K. Alibek, personal communication, 1998).
The inherent high biological decay rate for the Ebola virus in natural aerosols could be delayed however, if surrounded by suitable organic material which may act as a stabilizing agent, such as bat guano, or droplet mucous. Further studies are needed in this area.
In an effort to try and stop the Ebola situation from continuing to occur, on October 28, 2014, a former professor of Plant Pathology at the University of Liberia’s College of Agriculture and Forestry, wrote an open letter to the citizens of the world. Some points from the letter include the following:
Ebola is a genetically modified organism (GMO). Horowitz (1998) was deliberate and unambiguous when he explained the threat of new diseases in his text, Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola – Nature, Accident or Intentional. In his interview with Dr. Robert Strecker in Chapter 7, the discussion, in the early 1970s, made it obvious that the war was between countries that hosted the KGB and the CIA, and the ‘manufacture’ of ‘AIDS-Like Viruses’ was clearly directed at the other. In passing during the Interview, mention was made of Fort Detrick, “the Ebola Building,” and ‘a lot of problems with strange illnesses’ in “Frederick [Maryland].” By Chapter 12 in his text, he had confirmed the existence of an American Military-Medical-Industry that conducts biological weapons tests under the guise of administering vaccinations to control diseases and improve the health of “black Africans overseas.”
The WHO and several other UN Agencies have been implicated in selecting and enticing African countries to participate in the testing events, promoting vaccinations, but pursuing various testing regiments. The August 2, 2014 article, West Africa: What are U. S. Biological Warfare Researchers Doing in the Ebola Zone?, by Jon Rappoport of Global Research pinpoints the problem that is facing African governments. Obvious in this and other reports are, among others:
(a) The US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), a well-known centre for bio-war research, located at Fort Detrick, Maryland;
(b) Tulane University, in New Orleans, USA, winner of research grants, including a grant of more than $7 million from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund research with the Lassa viral hemorrhagic fever;
(c) the U. S. Center for Disease Control (CDC);
(d) Doctors Without Borders (also known by its French name, Medicins Sans Frontiers);
(e) Tekmira, a Canadian pharmaceutical company;
(f) The UK’s GlaxoSmithKline; and
(g) the Kenema Government Hospital in Kenema, Sierra Leone.
Reports narrate stories of the U. S. Department of Defense (DoD) funding Ebola trials on humans, trials which started just weeks before the Ebola outbreak in Guinea and Sierra Leone. The reports continue and state that the DoD gave a contract worth $140 million to Tekmira, a Canadian pharmaceutical company, to conduct Ebola research. This research work involved injecting and infusing healthy humans with the deadly Ebola virus. Hence, the DoD is listed as a collaborator in a “First in Human” Ebola clinical trial (NCT02041715), which started in January 2014 shortly before an Ebola epidemic was declared in West Africa in March. Disturbingly, many reports also conclude that the U. S. government has a viral fever bioterrorism research laboratory in Kenema, a town at the epicentre of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. As reported on Theguardian.com, “The U. S. government funding of Ebola trials on healthy humans comes amid warnings by top scientists in Harvard and Yale that such virus experiments risk triggering a worldwide pandemic.” That threat still persists.
The U. S., Canada, France, and the U. K. are all implicated in the Ebola scandal. Criminal charges and civil penalties should be pursued against all countries and corporations, including the United Nations, involved in what has been done to the west African countries and its people, and what they are trying to do to other countries, especially the United States. Evidence seems abundant against Tulane University, and some interesting information is contained in Yoichi Shimatsu’s article, The Ebola Breakout Coincided with UN Vaccine Campaigns, as published on August 18, 2014, in the Liberty Beacon.
On November 19, 2014, it was reported that based on the symptoms, some experts believe what we are experiencing in the U. S. is a variant of Ebola, not the West African Ebola. This is thought to be a run-up to a full blown Ebola epidemic in the U. S. in 2015, so they can implement medical martial law in the U. S. On October 24, Obama said, “There may come a time sometime in the future where we are dealing with an airborne disease that is much easier to catch and is deadly . . . in some ways this has created a trial run . . .”
Tulane University is at it again. Tulane University (located in New Orleans) was conducting hemorrhagic fever experiments in Sierra Leone near where the outbreak began at the time the Ebola outbreak occurred. The government of Sierra Leone speculated that Ebola escaped from the Tulane experiments, either accidentally or intentionally, and ordered them to leave Sierra Leone.
On March 18, 2015, it was reported that the CDC is currently investigating Tulane because a deadly bacterium, that is not found in the United States, infected seven monkeys at the University’s primate breeding center. The monkeys should never have crossed paths with the bacterium, and it has not been determined if the bacterium is now in the water and soil at the compound, which is near a school, homes, and a river.
The bacterium has a 50% fatality rate in its native Thailand. It was brought here to study it, weaponize it, and create a vaccine. Now it has been reported that a worker has been exposed to the bacterium.
A USDA inspector visited the facility to investigate, and the next day became sick. A spokesman for the USDA said that perhaps the bacterium has always been in the U. S. and in Louisiana, but the soil and water had never been tested for it. The USDA never said if the inspector had been tested for the bacterium, but the seven monkeys had been specifically tested for that particular bacterium.
A few days prior to the USDA inspector incident, a CDC expert in the bacterium had been interviewed and said that the bacterium has never been found in nature in the United States. They are already trying to cover up the latest bioterror agent they are creating that will need a mandatory vaccine.
- How Ebola is Spread in Humans
- Number of Ebola Cases/Deaths
- Treatments for Ebola
Treatments survivors received
- A Healthy Immune System is Essential to Fighting Any Disease
Tips to a healthier immune system
- Ebola in the United States Timeline — Unavoidable or Premeditated?
- The U. S. Government Response — Total Incompetence or Just Hoodwinking the Public?
According to its website, the CDC is “working 24/7 to protect America from health and safety threats,” and here’s how they do it
- The World Health Organization (WHO), an Agency of the UN, is Trying to Contain and Eradicate the Ebola Outbreak
- How the World is Responding to the Ebola Crisis
How is West Africa coping with the virus?