The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
Bioweapon Research Is Illegal. Many Charge That the US Is Engaged in It.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Robert Kadlec, Assistant Secretary of Health in Washington, denies that the US is involved with bioweapons research, as do most US officials. http://concerneduspatriots.com/pentagon-funded-mers-cov-sars-bioweapon-research/

Francis Boyle disagrees. He says that the US has 13,000 scientists working in bioweapon research in a large number of labs. https://www.amazon.com/Biowarfare-Terrorism-Francis-Boyle-ebook/dp/B001FB6II6

What is this if not bioweapon research:

https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/moratorium-on-gain-of-function-research-36564

Giving aerosol gain-of-function to pathogens is not bioweapons research?

What is this if not bioweapon research:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211291/U-S-government-gave-3-7million-grant-Wuhan-lab-experimented-coronavirus-source-bats.html

Funding coronavirus/bat research in a level 4 lab is not bioweapon research?

How does this differ from bioweapon research:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-34502

Certainly, nonweapon rationals can be given for the research. Nevertheless, creating a pathogen with aerosol transmission capability is to create a bioweapon.

Is there any possibility of enforcing US law that prohibits the US from participating in bioweapons research and production? Or do once again false “national security” claims take precedence over US law?

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 10 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    Certainly, nonweapon rationals can be given for the research

    That’s pretty much it. Words only mean what they say they mean and even that can change when they feel like it. Claims of national security, whatever that means, take precedence over everything, US law, international law, the laws of other countries. Law, what law?

  2. A123 says:

    KEY QUESTION:

    How does one tell a defense lab from an offense lab?
    _____

    Testing an anti-aerosol defense without an aerosol pathogen is effectively impossible. Yes. A wise man would use a 100% human safe aerosol, but it has to be infectious to the test’s “target species”. Because of the underlying physical reality, a certain amount of offense potential will be developed along with the associated defense.

    Given how thoroughly the enemies of freedom have penetrated the UN and other multilateral institutions — The U.S. is 100% correct in keeping them out of our defense labs. Nations that have intentionally corrupted multi-national institutions have less to lose from international inspection. However, as they cannot admit they are “Agents of Political Corruption”, they also wind up emulating the U.S. and refusing cooperation.

    Hopefully, all major powers realize that human endangering bio-WMD are too stupid to pursue. The risks far out weighs the potential military application. The only organizations that believe that they could gain from attacking humans with poorly controlled bio-WMD are Islamic Terrorists and Death Cults.

    Plant endangering bio-WMD that could wipe out crops is a different story. If any major powers have bio-WMD programs, they will be indirect weapons to be aimed at the supply chain. My favorite “myth” is the cement/concrete eating bacteria. Spray it on your enemy’s cities and watch them melt. At least, I hope it is a myth. It is a civilization ending disaster waiting to happen if it is not.

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @Verity
    , @paranoid goy
  3. anon[139] • Disclaimer says:

    Is there any possibility of enforcing US law that prohibits the US from participating in bioweapons research and production?

    Nope.

    What will happen is what happened in Syria – the SCO will enforce the law at gunpoint. China and Russia both this time, with a combination of state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, adjudicated in real independent courts like the ICJ, and interim countermeasures up to and including necessary and proportional self-defense. N.B. the Chinese doctrine of unrestricted warfare. The SCO can control escalation to safely coerce the USG to peace.

    Look at how the US has been undermining the object and purpose of the BWC.

    https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwc

    The US government will have to be decapitated and replaced with a successor state that interprets its obligations and commitments in good faith. The military/civilian command structure will have to be tried, punished and rehabilitated when possible.

    If you think of yourself as American, you might as well tell people you’re a Hittite. America is a meaningless abstraction used to disguise the criminal enterprise that’s got its hooks in you. You need to decide how you want to bust this rogue state up.

  4. Christo says:

    Nations conduct bio-weapons research as it is synonymous with all anti-bacterial , anti-virus research by default. You have to have/research/grow/develop dangerous germs to develop anti-dotes and vaccines to be used against them. Louis Pasteur? Penicillin ? Hello?

    Same as conducting chemical research into pesticides to stop insects. One of the end results was nerve gas- the organo-phosphates group

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  5. @Christo

    Nations conduct bio-weapons research as it is synonymous with all anti-bacterial , anti-virus research by default.

    It’s not by default. There are “good” viruses and “bad” viruses, just as there are “good’ and “bad” bacteria. Patents are granted for viruses. If you can patent something that occurs naturally, why isn’t there a patent on air or water?
    Obviously, most viruses occur in nature, and they mutate naturally. Tracing the mutation backward or foreward is viral/anti-viral research. Artificially introducing genetic material from one pathenogenic virus to another pathenogenic virus then patenting the result, is not viral/anti-viral research, it is weaponization.
    What struck me about the US situation, is the number of US military Labs in foreign countries.
    https://armswatch.com/the-pentagon-bio-weapons
    What possible reason would the military need that many Level 3 and 4 Labs overseas? Level 3 labs handle pathogens like TB.

  6. SupremeLaw says: • Website

    There’s a very pregnant sentence in one of the scientific papers cited by Prof. Francis A. Boyle, quoting now:

    “may provide a gain-of-function to the 2019-nCoV for efficient spreading in the human population”

    For my own benefit, because I am not a medical doctor or other medical professional,
    I did a simple editing exercise, to assist with understanding that quote:

    gain-of-function vs. loss-of-function

    efficient vs. inefficient

    spreading vs. containment

    human vs. plants and other animals

    entire population vs. limited subset

    Constructing that sentence in such a manner has helped to clarify
    the intended purpose of one “function” being the “efficient spreading”
    throughout the entire “human population”.

    As such, Prof. Boyle’s claim is correct: the “gain-of-function”
    rendered this virus and its probable mutations
    more contagious for humans and
    more lethal for humans, both!

    • Agree: Robert White
  7. Realist says:

    Is there any possibility of enforcing US law that prohibits the US from participating in bioweapons research and production?

    No

    Or do once again false “national security” claims take precedence over US law?

    Yes.

  8. Verity says:
    @A123

    Sorry to be the one to tell you, but the enemies of freedom are us. Want proof check out “Killing Hope.”

  9. Law Enforcement regarding Gain-of-Function Dual Use research in BSL-3 & 4 laboratories is already supposed to be able to stop the research. Politicians know that the scientists & researchers have been calling for a moratorium on this type of research since 2014 when Lipsitch came out with his Call to Action against it.

    The Trump administration is responsible for reopening the research domain once Lipsitch shut it down in 2014. Trump signed orders to start the BSL-4 funding again in 2017. The rest is history in the making vis-à-vis bioterrorism.

    RW

  10. @A123

    ” The only organizations that believe that they could gain from attacking humans with poorly controlled bio-WMD are Islamic Terrorists and Death Cults.”
    …like insects carrying pathogens to plants, animals and humans?
    I like your style: start with something profane/
    establish credentials (patriot in this case)/
    use platform to fomet racism.
    Are you a new-world liberal with specific ideas regarding all the fascists who believe the wrong things?
    …or are you a paid “influencer on the webthing” spouting hatred at so-many-bucks-per-post?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS