Weapons from the laboratory, or the Convention and the reality
In April of this year, it will be forty years since the Convention on Biological and Toxin was open for signature weapons (BTWC). To date, more than 160 countries are participating in it and pledge not to create, produce, or store biological weapons. A very useful agreement, because its subject is one of the worst creatures of military genius. But for a number of reasons, it is very difficult to guarantee the follow-up of some unreliable states that may violate the Convention. And the adoption of measures to prevent the creation and manufacture of biological weapons is also unlikely to do without scandals. An example is the Iraqi events of the beginning of the two thousandth. Then, NATO justified its invasion of the territory of the Middle East state with the available information that there are weapons of mass destruction. It could be a biological weapon, but much more talk was about chemical weapons. Probably, there is no need to remind what scandal was accompanied by all this epic with Iraqi WMD and how it ended in the end. The weapons were not found, but the current government was overthrown.
However, biological weapons can have not only purely military use. For some time, even big business has become a “nightmare” for ordinary people. So, in 2008, the American billionaire T. Turner said in plain text that it would not hurt to reduce the population of the planet to two billion people, because the Earth will not be able to feed more Earth. Turner’s statements, it should be noted, remained relatively unnoticed and entered into circulation only in conspiracy circles. About a year later at the conference on global warming, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climatology G.Kh. Schelnhuber reduced the "optimal" number of humanity to a billion, plus or minus a few million. And again, as a justification for reducing the number of people on the planet, the argument of an insufficient raw material and food base was cited. Finally, in 2010, a scandal erupted in the press. After his speech at the TED-2010 conference, the notorious B. Gates hit the “club of optimizers”. His methods of saving the Earth are a bit more modest - only minus 10-15% of the population. But it was not the quantitative aspect of his statement that added fuel to the fire. Gates believes that to "optimize" the number of people need to attract pharmaceutical and chemical companies, as well as reproductive medicine. He didn’t read out the big details of his fabrications, but he said enough to start a wave in the media. Immediately, information emerged about a kind of semi-secret fund, from which, according to rumors, work on the creation of specific techniques for reducing the world's population was to be financed. Wonderful, I must say, reason for the scandal. The words of Gates were instantly “adopted” by opponents of vaccinations and genetic modification of crops. Of course, it was a good, in their opinion, argument in favor of the so-called. conspiracy of transnational corporations. Conspiracy therapists also joined the case.
In theory, reducing the population of the planet can be much faster and more efficiently, and most importantly, cheaper. The production of any weapons of mass destruction will cost a noticeably smaller amount than 60 billions of dollars - so rumored was the volume of that very secret fund. However, weapons of mass destruction are subject to a number of international agreements, and no matter how evil, heartless and merciless the conspirators-contractees may be, they cannot simply sow certain areas with chemicals. But some deadly disease, preferably spreading selectively, would fit perfectly into conspiracy theories. Here we again return to the subject of biological weapons. In particular, this is why news about the next "non-standard" strain, for example, the flu is often met with a grin and is accompanied by ironic statements about the potential earnings of pharmacists or fears about the fate of their country. And now, another round of viral hysteria. The New York Times recently published an article about the experiences of the Erasmus Medical Center (Rotterdam, the Netherlands). It is alleged that by some operations from the virus A / H1N1 (the same "swine flu") managed to get a new strain that has higher mortality rates than the original. Accurate data on the progress of the experiment yet. Moreover, the US National Scientific Council on Biosafety has appealed to leading scientific publications with a request not to publish the results of experiments of Dutch scientists. The explanation of the request was simple and clear - the published information could fall into unreliable hands and cause epidemics of terrorist origin. There was no response from Erasmus Medical Center.
On the other hand, fabrications on the prospects of the resulting virus followed. One side of the disputants proposes to immediately destroy it and all the documentation of the experiment, and the other, on the contrary, considers the work done as a useful undertaking. The practical use of the experiment, according to the second group, is that the resulting technique can help identify potentially dangerous strains of viruses and take preventive measures in time. If in the Netherlands experience on ferrets (the reaction of the organisms of these animals is very similar to human), it was possible to find out the number and probability of mutations leading to an increase in the ability of the virus to spread, then why cannot this be done with other viruses in other countries? Thus, it will be possible to empirically find viruses that can, after a minimum number of mutations, pose a threat to humans. In addition to the detection of potentially dangerous viruses, the result of the Erasmus Medical Center experiment will also be useful for vaccine manufacturers. Early detection of a dangerous pathogen will allow earlier to create a vaccine and create adverse conditions for the spread of the disease.
Against the preservation of research data, as already mentioned, the argument is given of their possible falling into the wrong hands. Of course, it’s not so easy to grow a new virus, and this requires special conditions. But no one can guarantee that “in the wrong hands” there is also no specialized laboratory. Finally, there is also a partly conspiracy point of view on the problem. It is known that the research of the Erasmus Medical Center was partially funded by the US National Institute of Health. It may just be a collaboration of organizations of the same profile. But on the other hand, who will guarantee that the American institute was not a mediator between the Netherlands center and the Pentagon? Fertile ground for speculation and accusations.
Another fact can speak in favor of the “American footprint”. In recent years, the United States has created a network of biological laboratories around the world. They are designed to monitor the overall epidemiological situation in the entrusted region, as well as to find and study bacteria and viruses. All information received, of course, is sent to the States. According to the official version, the creation of these laboratories pursued only one goal - the protection of the entire planet from dangerous diseases. Yes, only the official version, as always, causes many doubts. Moreover, suspicions appear not only among ordinary citizens. So, last summer, Russia's chief sanitary officer G. Onishchenko said that his organization has every reason to suspect Georgia of “minor dirty tricks”. According to him, the outbreak of African swine fever, which hit the southern regions of Russia, came precisely because of the Caucasus Mountains. Even more zest to these statements is the presence of the American biological laboratory in Georgia, which is studying the local “microfauna”.
Nevertheless, the Convention on Biological and Toxin Weapons is not only open for accession, but also ratified by many states. This agreement, among other things, prohibits scientific research in the field of biology commissioned by military departments. So there is every reason to believe that in “civilized countries” the studies of bacteria and viruses really go to ensure the epidemiological safety of the population. But international terrorism can hardly be suspected of good intentions. For such a public, biological weapons are a convenient means of implementing so-called actions. Obviously, the production of biological weapons is very difficult and expensive, but this is no reason not to follow this area. So in the very near future, despite all the existing agreements, viruses and bacteria should be dealt with not only by scientists, but also by the special services.
However, biological weapons can have not only purely military use. For some time, even big business has become a “nightmare” for ordinary people. So, in 2008, the American billionaire T. Turner said in plain text that it would not hurt to reduce the population of the planet to two billion people, because the Earth will not be able to feed more Earth. Turner’s statements, it should be noted, remained relatively unnoticed and entered into circulation only in conspiracy circles. About a year later at the conference on global warming, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climatology G.Kh. Schelnhuber reduced the "optimal" number of humanity to a billion, plus or minus a few million. And again, as a justification for reducing the number of people on the planet, the argument of an insufficient raw material and food base was cited. Finally, in 2010, a scandal erupted in the press. After his speech at the TED-2010 conference, the notorious B. Gates hit the “club of optimizers”. His methods of saving the Earth are a bit more modest - only minus 10-15% of the population. But it was not the quantitative aspect of his statement that added fuel to the fire. Gates believes that to "optimize" the number of people need to attract pharmaceutical and chemical companies, as well as reproductive medicine. He didn’t read out the big details of his fabrications, but he said enough to start a wave in the media. Immediately, information emerged about a kind of semi-secret fund, from which, according to rumors, work on the creation of specific techniques for reducing the world's population was to be financed. Wonderful, I must say, reason for the scandal. The words of Gates were instantly “adopted” by opponents of vaccinations and genetic modification of crops. Of course, it was a good, in their opinion, argument in favor of the so-called. conspiracy of transnational corporations. Conspiracy therapists also joined the case.
In theory, reducing the population of the planet can be much faster and more efficiently, and most importantly, cheaper. The production of any weapons of mass destruction will cost a noticeably smaller amount than 60 billions of dollars - so rumored was the volume of that very secret fund. However, weapons of mass destruction are subject to a number of international agreements, and no matter how evil, heartless and merciless the conspirators-contractees may be, they cannot simply sow certain areas with chemicals. But some deadly disease, preferably spreading selectively, would fit perfectly into conspiracy theories. Here we again return to the subject of biological weapons. In particular, this is why news about the next "non-standard" strain, for example, the flu is often met with a grin and is accompanied by ironic statements about the potential earnings of pharmacists or fears about the fate of their country. And now, another round of viral hysteria. The New York Times recently published an article about the experiences of the Erasmus Medical Center (Rotterdam, the Netherlands). It is alleged that by some operations from the virus A / H1N1 (the same "swine flu") managed to get a new strain that has higher mortality rates than the original. Accurate data on the progress of the experiment yet. Moreover, the US National Scientific Council on Biosafety has appealed to leading scientific publications with a request not to publish the results of experiments of Dutch scientists. The explanation of the request was simple and clear - the published information could fall into unreliable hands and cause epidemics of terrorist origin. There was no response from Erasmus Medical Center.
On the other hand, fabrications on the prospects of the resulting virus followed. One side of the disputants proposes to immediately destroy it and all the documentation of the experiment, and the other, on the contrary, considers the work done as a useful undertaking. The practical use of the experiment, according to the second group, is that the resulting technique can help identify potentially dangerous strains of viruses and take preventive measures in time. If in the Netherlands experience on ferrets (the reaction of the organisms of these animals is very similar to human), it was possible to find out the number and probability of mutations leading to an increase in the ability of the virus to spread, then why cannot this be done with other viruses in other countries? Thus, it will be possible to empirically find viruses that can, after a minimum number of mutations, pose a threat to humans. In addition to the detection of potentially dangerous viruses, the result of the Erasmus Medical Center experiment will also be useful for vaccine manufacturers. Early detection of a dangerous pathogen will allow earlier to create a vaccine and create adverse conditions for the spread of the disease.
Against the preservation of research data, as already mentioned, the argument is given of their possible falling into the wrong hands. Of course, it’s not so easy to grow a new virus, and this requires special conditions. But no one can guarantee that “in the wrong hands” there is also no specialized laboratory. Finally, there is also a partly conspiracy point of view on the problem. It is known that the research of the Erasmus Medical Center was partially funded by the US National Institute of Health. It may just be a collaboration of organizations of the same profile. But on the other hand, who will guarantee that the American institute was not a mediator between the Netherlands center and the Pentagon? Fertile ground for speculation and accusations.
Another fact can speak in favor of the “American footprint”. In recent years, the United States has created a network of biological laboratories around the world. They are designed to monitor the overall epidemiological situation in the entrusted region, as well as to find and study bacteria and viruses. All information received, of course, is sent to the States. According to the official version, the creation of these laboratories pursued only one goal - the protection of the entire planet from dangerous diseases. Yes, only the official version, as always, causes many doubts. Moreover, suspicions appear not only among ordinary citizens. So, last summer, Russia's chief sanitary officer G. Onishchenko said that his organization has every reason to suspect Georgia of “minor dirty tricks”. According to him, the outbreak of African swine fever, which hit the southern regions of Russia, came precisely because of the Caucasus Mountains. Even more zest to these statements is the presence of the American biological laboratory in Georgia, which is studying the local “microfauna”.
Nevertheless, the Convention on Biological and Toxin Weapons is not only open for accession, but also ratified by many states. This agreement, among other things, prohibits scientific research in the field of biology commissioned by military departments. So there is every reason to believe that in “civilized countries” the studies of bacteria and viruses really go to ensure the epidemiological safety of the population. But international terrorism can hardly be suspected of good intentions. For such a public, biological weapons are a convenient means of implementing so-called actions. Obviously, the production of biological weapons is very difficult and expensive, but this is no reason not to follow this area. So in the very near future, despite all the existing agreements, viruses and bacteria should be dealt with not only by scientists, but also by the special services.
Information