Should We Just Follow Orders? Rules of Engagement for Resisting the Police State

Should We Just Follow Orders? Rules of Engagement for Resisting the Police State

By John W. Whitehead
October 07, 2014

“Let your motto be resistance! resistance! Resistance! No oppressed people have ever secured their liberty without resistance.”—Abolitionist Henry Highland Garnet

The perils of resisting the police state grow more costly with each passing day, especially if you hope to escape with your life and property intact. The thing you must remember is that we’ve entered an age of militarized police in which we’re no longer viewed as civilians but as enemy combatants.

Take, for example, Mary Elizabeth VandenBerg who was charged with disturbing the peace, a crime punishable by up to 93 days in jail and a $500 fine, for daring to vocalize her frustrations over a traffic ticket by reading a prepared statement to the court clerk and paying her $145 traffic ticket with 145 one-dollar bills. VandenBerg was also handcuffed, tasered and pepper sprayed for “passively” resisting police by repeatedly stopping and talking to them and stiffening her arms. The incident, filmed by VandenBerg’s brother, is now the subject of a lawsuit.

Zachary Noel was tasered by police and charged with resisting arrest after he questioned why he was being ordered out of his truck during a traffic stop. “Because I’m telling you to,” the officer replied before repeating his order for Noel to get out of the vehicle and then, without warning, shooting him with a taser through the open window. The encounter, recorded with a cell phone by Noel’s friend in the passenger seat, offers a particularly chilling affirmation of how little recourse Americans really have when it comes to obeying an order from a government official or police officer, even if it’s just to ask a question or assert one’s rights.

Eighteen-year-old Keivon Young was shot seven times by police from behind while urinating outdoors. Young was just zipping up his pants when he heard a commotion behind him and then found himself struck by a hail of bullets from two undercover cops. Despite the fact that the officers mistook Young—5’4,” 135 lbs., and guilty of nothing more than taking a leak outdoors—for a 6’ tall, 200 lb. murder suspect whom they later apprehended, the young man was charged with felony resisting arrest and two counts of assaulting a peace officer.

What these incidents make clear is that anything short of compliance will now get you charged with any of the growing number of contempt charges (ranging from resisting arrest and interference to disorderly conduct, obstruction, and failure to obey a police order) that get trotted out anytime a citizen voices discontent with the government or challenges or even questions the authority of the powers that be—and that’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario involves getting probed, poked, pinched, tasered, tackled, searched, seized, stripped, manhandled, arrested, shot, or killed.

So what can you really do when you find yourself at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect”? In other words, what are the rules of engagement when it comes to interacting with the police?

If you want to play it safe, comply and do whatever a police officer tells you to do. Don’t talk back. Don’t threaten. And don’t walk away. In other words, don’t do anything that even hints at resistance.

Keep in mind, however, that this is not a fail-safe plan, especially not in an age where police officers tend to shoot first and ask questions later, oftentimes based only on their highly subjective “feeling” of being threatened, and are reprimanded with little more than a slap on the wrist. Indeed, the news is riddled with reports of individuals who didn’t resist when confronted by police and still got tasered, tackled or shot simply because they looked at police in a threatening manner or moved in a way that made an officer fear for his safety.

For example, Levar Edward Jones was shot by a South Carolina police officer during a routine traffic stop over a seatbelt violation as he was in the process of reaching for his license and registration. The trooper justified his shooting of the unarmed man by insisting that Jones reached for his license “aggressively.”

If compliance isn’t quite your cup of tea—and we’d be far better off as a nation if we were far less compliant—then you’ve got a few more options ranging from legal-but-sure-to-annoy-an-officer to legal-but-it-could-get-you-arrested to legal-but-it-could-get-you-shot.

If this is war—and a good case could be made for the fact that the government is indeed waging a war on the American citizenry—then the tactics I’m about to outline could be considered nonviolent guerilla warfare, using whatever strategic, legal, creative and nonviolent means are available in order to outmaneuver an opponent—in our case, the American police force—whose language is the language of force.

To begin with, and most importantly, Americans need to know their rights when it comes to interactions with the police, bearing in mind that many law enforcement officials are largely ignorant of the law themselves. In a nutshell, here are your basic rights when it comes to interactions with the police as outlined in the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

You have the right under the First Amendment to ask questions and express yourself. You have the right under the Fourth Amendment to not have your person or your property searched by police or any government agent unless they have a search warrant authorizing them to do so.  You have the right under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent and not incriminate yourself.

You have the right under the Sixth Amendment to request an attorney. Depending on which state you live in and whether your encounter with police is consensual as opposed to your being temporarily detained or arrested, you may have the right to refuse to identify yourself. Presently, 26 states do not require citizens to show their ID to an officer (drivers in all states must do so, however).

Knowing your rights is only part of the battle, unfortunately. The hard part comes in when you have to exercise those rights in order to hold government officials accountable to respecting those rights  As a rule of thumb, you should always be sure to clarify in any police encounter whether or not you are being detained, i.e., whether you have the right to walk away.

That holds true whether it’s a casual “show your ID” request on a boardwalk, a stop-and-frisk search on a city street, or a traffic stop for speeding or just to check your insurance. As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, if you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re essentially under arrest from the moment a cop stops you.

Still, it doesn’t hurt to clarify that distinction, as Kahler Nygard learned. Nygard was threatened with arrest for failing to comply with an order by TSA agents to undergo additional screening after flying with no incident from Minneapolis to his final destination in Denver. It turns out that Nygard, at one time a vocal critic of the government, had been placed on a special list requiring him to undergo extra airport screening. When airport officials realized that they had failed to carry out the additional screening prior to Nygard’s departure, they attempted to cover their mistake by screening him once he landed. To the annoyance of the government agent, Nygard—who filmed the entire encounter—repeatedly asked the agent whether he was being detained or not. Once he deduced that the TSA had no legal rationale for detaining him, Nygard walked away without incident. The encounter might have ended far differently had a police officer been standing nearby, however.

Another important takeaway from Nygard’s experience is to record your encounter with police. While technology is always going to be a double-edged sword, with the gadgets that are the most useful to us in our daily lives—GPS devices, cell phones, the internet—being the very tools used by the government to track us, monitor our activities, and generally spy on us, cell phones are particularly useful for recording encounters with the police and have proven to be increasingly powerful reminders to police that they are not all powerful.

No matter what individual police officers might say to the contrary, members of the public have a First Amendment right to record police interactions, as the Justice Department recognized in a 2012 memorandum acknowledging that “recording governmental officers engaged in public duties is a form of speech through which private individuals may gather and disseminate information of public concern, including the conduct of law enforcement officers.”

That said, there may still be consequences for filming the police, as Fred Marlow learned the hard way. Marlow was charged with interfering and resisting arrest, and fined $5,000 for daring to film a SWAT team raid that took place across the street from his apartment. Marlow was asleep when he heard what sounded like “multiple bombs blasting and glass breaking.” Rushing outside to investigate, Marlow filmed police officers dressed in army green camouflage standing beside an armored vehicle, in the process of carrying out a SWAT team raid to serve a search warrant (more than 80,000 such raids take place every year in the U.S. for such routine police procedures as serving search warrants). Ordered to return inside or face arrest for interference, Marlow explained that he was on his own property and could be outside. He was subsequently arrested.

One popular alternative to citizens filming police encounters is having the police wear body cameras, which have been proven to decrease the number of use-of-force incidents and citizen complaints when used properly. Unfortunately, given that they can be turned off as easily as they are turned on, these devices are also ripe for abuse, not to mention the fact that they are privacy-threatening, roving extensions of the surveillance state whose cameras are conveniently pointed at us, not them.

Clearly, the language of freedom is no longer the common tongue spoken by the citizenry and their government. With the government having shifted into a language of force, “we the people” have been reduced to suspects in a surveillance state, criminals in a police state, and enemy combatants in a military empire

In such an environment, as every resistor from Martin Luther King Jr. and on down the line has learned, there is always a price to be paid for challenging the status quo. Then again, the price for not challenging the status quo is even worse: outright tyranny, the loss of our freedoms, and a totalitarian regime the likes of which the world has never seen before.

WC: 1834

University scientist openly advocated Ebola release to kill off 90 percent of world population

 

University scientist openly advocated

Ebola release to kill off 90 percent of

world population

Monday, October 06, 2014 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: Ebola, population control, university scientist

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047143_Ebola_population_control_university_scientist.html#ixzz3FOuKt8gE

(NaturalNews) Why anyone, even an uber-liberal academic, would ever want to see most of the world’s people killed, is a mystery, but sure enough, the FBI has developed an interest in just such an academic, especially now that the Ebola virus has landed in the United States.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, the virus causes a form of hemorrhagic fever in which internal organs eventually deteriorate and liquefy. There is no known cure or vaccine for the disease, and it has an extremely high mortality rate of between 80 and 90 percent in most parts of the world where it strikes.
In addition, as LifeSiteNews further reports:
It is also high on the list of possible bio-terror weapons of concern to international law enforcement and military security agencies. Tom Clancy’s thriller novel, Rainbow Six describes a group of radical environmentalists that wants to rid the world of people using a modified version of Ebola.
Every one will have to bury nine
And that’s why the FBI is interested in speaking with Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a Texas ecologist and herpetologist who suggested during a meeting at the Texas Academy of Sciences that, were Ebola to become airborne, it would likely kill 90 percent of the human population and instantly solve what he called the "overpopulation problem."
Now that Ebola has come to the U.S. in, of all places, Texas, Dr. Pianka has been walking back his comments, telling the Austin American-Statesman that he has never advocated bio-terrorism and that he met with local FBI officials in response to suggestions that bio-terrorism was precisely what he had in mind.
"Someone has reported me as a terrorist," Dr. Pianka told the paper, according to LifeSiteNews. "They think I’m forming a cadre of people to release the airborne Ebola virus into the air. That I’m the leader and my students are the followers."
When Dr. Pianka was named by the academy as a Distinguished Texas Scientist in 2006, he stated that the AIDS virus was not killing off the surplus human population quickly enough. What he said was needed was to have Ebola eliminate 5.8 billion of the world’s then-6 billion people. Even more bizarre — and scary — is that his speech received a standing ovation at the academy’s annual meeting, at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas.
Indeed, as LifeSiteNews reported, quoting the Seguin Gazette, Dr. Pianka also stated, "Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine." There is more discussion of that quote and Pianka’s statements here and here.
Continuing in his speech, Pianka said, "[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity. We’re looking forward to a huge collapse. We’ve grown fat, apathetic and miserable," he continued, describing the world as a "fat, human biomass."
Ebola manufactured? Curable?
LifeSiteNews continued:
The syllabus for one of Pianka’s courses reads, "Although [Ebola Zaire] Kills 9 out of 10 people, outbreaks have so far been unable to become epidemics because they are currently spread only by direct physical contact with infected blood…Ebola Reston, is airborne, and it is only a matter of time until Ebola Zaire evolves the capacity to be airborne."
As far as Dr. Pianka’s wish that someone might actually go with the idea of using Ebola as a bio-weapon, LifesiteNews quoted him as saying, "Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Reston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people."
Is it possible to make a bio-weapon out of Ebola? Radio talk show host Dave Hodges thinks so. He says evidence which he has uncovered convinced him that a) Ebola is a 100 percent manufactured virus; and b) the U.S. had had a vaccine cure for it for nearly a decade. Read his report here.
Learn all these details and more at the FREE online Pandemic Preparedness course atwww.BioDefense.com
Sources:
http://www.allnewspipeline.com
http://www.lifesitenews.com
http://www.pearceyreport.com
http://drrichswier.com
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com
http://seguingazette.com
http://science.naturalnews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/047143_Ebola_population_control_university_scientist.html#ixzz3FOu9vJso

Convicted Arch Global War Criminal Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order

Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a

New World Order

http://online.wsj.com/articles/henry-kissinger-on-the-assembly-of-a-new-world-order-1409328075?tesla=y

The concept that has underpinned the modern geopolitical era is in crisis

The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis, writes Henry Kissinger. Above, a pro-Russian fighter stands guard at a checkpoint close to Donetsk, Ukraine in July. European Pressphoto Agency

Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan’s young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.

The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace. The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.

In the Middle East, religious militias violate borders at will. Getty Images

This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world’s territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.

The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power. But vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.

First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures. Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power. But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order. And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders. At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

The challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe’s: Balance-of-power principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.

The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.

This dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in 2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010. The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union’s southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.

A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as “social media” event. A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.

The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.

The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another. These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.

A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages.

To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions’ histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America’s exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.

—Dr. Kissinger served as national security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford. Adapted from his book “World Order,” to be published Sept. 9 by the Penguin Press.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/henry-kissinger-on-the-assembly-of-a-new-world-order-1409328075?tesla=y

Why isn’t this Piece of Shit Kissinger not in jail awaiting his execution for crimes against Humanity? Answer: Because he’s a ZIONIST ELITE

“EBOLA UPDATE” Will Ebola Go Global or Has It Already

Man in Brampton, Ont. being treated for Ebola-like

system

 

• As west Africa Ebola outbreak reaches historic proportions – where does it come from, how is it spread and why is it so deadly?
• Ebola Update: CDC answers questions about ZMapp, the ‘secret’ experimental serum given to two American doctors
• Ebola-infected American arrives in Atlanta
• Study links vitamin D deficiency to dementia

Cheryl Santa Maria
Digital Reporter

Friday, August 8, 2014, 8:28 PM – A man from Brampton, Ontario is being treated for Ebola-like symptoms after travelling to West Africa but doctors are warning the public not to jump to conclusions, as the presence of Ebola has not been confirmed.

Public health officials said the man was admitted to the Brampton Civic hospital Friday, where he is being kept in isolation. The patient frequently travels to Nigeria, one of the areas hardest hit by the outbreak.

Dr. Eileen de Villa, a medical officer with the Region of Peel, stressed the patient has not officially be diagnosed with Ebola and the measures being taken are strictly precautionary, adding that the patient’s symptoms could be the result of several diseases.

The news comes hours after the World Health Organization declared the Ebola epidemic to be a global health emergency.

The infection has killed nearly 1,000 people in West Africa so far. Part of the problem is Ebola’s long incubation period, which can last between 2 and 21 days.

"A coordinated international response is deemed essential to stop and reverse the international spread of Ebola," WHO said in a Friday statement following an emergency committee meeting.

"The outbreak is moving faster than we can control it," Margaret Chan, director-general at WHO, told reporters via telephone.

"The declaration … will galvanize the attention of leaders of all countries at the top level. It cannot be done by the ministries of health alone."

Nigeria has declared a state of emergency in light of the WHO declaration.

CAN EBOLA BE STOPPED?

Health officials are confident they can put an end to the outbreak.

??????????

Patient with Ebola-like symptoms

quarantined in

Canada as UK develops new vaccine

Published time: August 10, 2014 03:09

Get short URL

AFP Photo / Zoom Dosso

A patient with symptoms resembling Ebola has been placed in an isolation unit in a hospital near Toronto, health officials said. The patient returned to Canada after visiting Nigeria.

The male was hospitalized at William Osler Health System’s Brampton Civic Hospital, located in Toronto’s suburbs, on Friday.

“As a precautionary measure, Osler put in heightened infection control measures in the emergency department including isolating the patient,” the hospital said in a statement.

Doctors are “working closely” with public health officials “to confirm a diagnosis.”

“To date, there are no confirmed cases of Ebola in Ontario and the risk to Ontarians remains very low,” AFP quoted Ontario’s Interim Chief Medical Officer of Health, Graham Pollett, as saying.

Reuters / Tommy Trenchard

Pollet assured that the province’s healthcare system “is prepared to respond should an individual arrive with symptoms that could suggest a disease, such as Ebola.”

He reminded that Ebola symptoms are similar to other common illnesses and added that doctors have been “advised to be on heightened alert for Ebola cases.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday that a preventative vaccine against the Ebola virus has been developed by British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline, and could be available by 2015.

READ MORE: Intl health emergency: WHO issues Ebola warning

“We are targeting September for the start of clinical trials, first in the United States and certainly in African countries, since that’s where we have the cases,” AFP quoted WHO’s head of vaccines and immunization, Jean-Marie Okwo Bele, as saying on French radio.

“And since this is an emergency, we can put emergency procedures in place…so that we can have a vaccine available by 2015,” he added.

At this point, there are several vaccines being tested. There is also a treatment called Zmapp, developed by San Diego-based Mapp Biopharmaceutical, which produced positive results on monkeys and may have helped two Americans recently infected in Africa.

READ MORE: ‘Secret serum’: Experimental Ebola drug used to treat 2 US aid workers

The current Ebola outbreak, which began in Guinea in March, is considered to be the world’s largest ever, with 961 deaths and nearly 1,800 people infected so far.

Some of the ultrastructural morphology displayed by an Ebola virus virion is revealed in this undated handout colorized transmission electron micrograph (TEM) obtained by Reuters August 1, 2014 (Reuters / Frederick Murphy)

The worst hit countries so far include Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea. Nigeria also reported nine confirmed cases of Ebola.

On Friday, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan declared a national emergency, following in the footsteps of Liberia’s president, who declared a state of emergency on Wednesday.

READ MORE: Liberia declares state of emergency as Ebola death toll rises to 932

The World Health Organization said on Friday that the Ebola outbreak in West Africa is an “extraordinary event” which poses a public health risk to other states. The health body described the consequences of a further international spread of the virus as “particularly serious” due to its virulence.

“A coordinated international response is deemed essential to stop and reverse the international spread of Ebola,” the WHO said in a statement after a two-day meeting of its emergency committee.

***************************************

What You Need to Do to Survive Ebola BEFORE the

Panic Starts

The Ebola virus is spreading and no one in any position of authority is releasing information to the public about how serious of a contagion this is

Image Credits: European Commission / Flickr

by Mac Slavo | SHTFplan.com | August 7, 2014

The Ebola virus is spreading and no one in any position of authority is releasing information to the public about how serious of a contagion this is.

It was just a few weeks ago that the CDC and mainstream media claimed it wouldn’t make it to U.S. shores, but as of this morning, reports are flowing in from all over the country from hospitals that have admitted patients who recently traveled to Africa and are showing possible symptoms of the deadly virus.

In Nigeria, where there have only been a couple of deaths reported officially, the medical community has formally requested help in the form of experimental serums from the United States, suggesting things are much worse there than are being reported.

Moreover, the World Health Organization reports an explosion in confirmed cases over the last 48 hours.

An analysis of confirmed cases from Joshua Krause at The Daily Sheeple suggests that, while the virus almost died out back in April, it is now back with a vengeance and growing at a seemingly exponential rate.

What’s most bizarre and frustrating about all of this is that neither the U.S. government or the Centers for Disease Control have provided any actionable information or advice to the American public. They maintain that they have the facilities to stop any such outbreak and continue to tout the narrative that there is nothing to fear, because they have it all under control.

Should even one single case pop up in a random U.S. city, that narrative will fall apart instantly. If someone in Georgia, Ohio, New York or any other state checked themselves into a hospital and are found to be infected with Ebola it will prove without a shadow of a doubt that all CDC containment efforts have failed.

In such an instance where Ebola is found to be in the “wild” anywhere in the continental United States you can be certain that panic will follow.

Take a look at the following photo. It was taken last week in Toledo about an hour after the city announced that their water supply had been contaminated with toxins:

Notice how every drop of pure H2O has been removed from the shelves.

Imagine for a moment what grocery store shelves, pharmacies and hardware supply stores are going to look like within 12 hours of an Ebola infection or outbreak being announced on U.S. soil.

Things will happen fast.

Now, for all we know the CDC’s containment efforts are successful, and perhaps Ebola will be stopped in its tracks. But being naturally skeptical of our government’s abilities to mitigate such a virus, especially given the lack of any actual information from the CDC or government, we must assume that Ebola will eventually start popping up in the United States.

When it does, the CDC and Homeland Security will likely announce a number of precautions that we need to take. Those precautions are going to include supply lists and strategies.

Guess what 300 million Americans are going to do all at once when those supply lists and recommendation are announced? ( Look no further than the DHS Fukushima radiation announcement and how it affected the supply and price of potassium iodide)

Here’s the bottom line: If you don’t have your supplies before emergency announcements hit the airwaves, then plan on going without.

If you want to take action ahead of millions of panicked Americans, then we urge you to follow the recommendations below. They come from informed sources and will be very similar to what the government will recommend in the event of an Ebola outbreak or pandemic emergency.

Emergency services professional Tess Pennington, author of The Prepper’s Blueprint, explains that the government will have specific protocols to follow on local, state and federal levels, and they’ll include widespread shutdowns:

Understanding that our lives will change drastically if the population is faced with a pandemic and being prepared for this can help you make better choices toward the well being of your family. Some changes could be:

-Challenges or shut downs of business commerce

-Breakdown of our basic infrastructure: communications, mass transportation, supply chains

-Payroll service interruptions

-Staffing shortages in hospitals and medical clinics

-Interruptions in public facilities – Schools, workplaces may close, and public gatherings such as sporting events or worship services may close temporarily.

-Government mandated voluntary or involuntary home quarantine.

Essentially, once this happens the whole system could potentially go into lock-down.

The Organic Prepper and author of The Pantry Primer says that in this environment that you must take the No One Goes Out, No One Comes In approach in order to be absolutely certain no one in your household is exposed.

I know this sounds harsh, but there are to be no exceptions. If you make exceptions, you might as well go wrestle with runny-nosed strangers at the local Wal-Mart and then come home and hug your children, because it’s the same thing.

Once you have gone into lockdown mode, that means that the supplies you have on hand are the supplies you have to see you through.  You can’t run out to the store and get something you’ve forgotten.

That means if a family member shows up, they have to go into quarantine for at least 4 weeks, during which time they are not allowed access to the home or family, nor are they allowed to go out in public.  Set up an area on your property that is far from your home for them to hang out for their month of quarantine. If at the end of the month they are presenting no symptoms, then they can come in.

It sadly means that you may be forced to turn someone away if they are ill, because to help them means to risk your family.

Now is the time to plan with your preparedness group how you intend to handle the situation. Will you shelter together, in the same location, and reserve a secondary location to retreat to if the situation worsens further or if someone becomes ill? Will you shelter separately because of the nature of the emergency?  Decide together on what event and proximity will trigger you to go into lockdown mode. Make your plan and stick to it, regardless of pressure from those who think you are over-reacting, the school that your children have stopped attending, and any other external influences. If you’ve decided that there is a great enough risk that you need to go into lockdown, you must adhere to your plan.

Full Article

Here’s a basic supply list, provided by The Organic Prepper, of items you’ll need to weather a pandemic emergency:

• Drinking water (1 gallon per person per day)
• Food (includingitems that don’t require fuel for preparation)
• Heavy duty garbage bags
• Sanitation supplies such as toilet paper, paper towels, baby wipes, and feminine hygiene supplies)
• Entertainment – you’ll want to be able tokeep children and restless family members busyso get craft supplies, books, games, and puzzles
• Basic medical supplies (here’s a list)
• Pandemic kits that contain protective clothing (we have aQuakeKare Deluxe Pandemic Flu Kitfor each family member)
• Extra N95 masks (3M 1860 Health Care N95 Particulate Respirator and Surgical Mask, Small Adult, 20/Bx)
• Nitrile gloves (Dynarex Black Nitrile Exam Gloves, Heavy-Duty, Powder Free, Large, Box/100)
• Safety goggles with an elastic band to ensure a snug fit (Pyramex V2G Safety Eyewear, Clear Anti-Fog Lens With Black Strap/Temples)
• Antibacterial cleaners such as disposable wipes, bleach, and spray cleaners
• Antibacterial hand sanitizer (Purell Pump Bottle, Original, 8 Ounce (Pack of 12))

Those items should help with prevention, especially if you take the advice of locking down and staying home.

However, we must assume that some of us, for whatever reason, will still have to make our way out into public. And with that assumption, we must also expect the absolute worst case scenario – an infection or suspected infection within in our own ranks.

If you must venture outside then take a look at what medical personnel are sporting in highly contagious environments:

If you’re forced to exit your home, you’re going to want to be fully protected, and that includes covering your hands, eyes, nose, and mouth.

In addition to the N-95 respirator masks mentioned above, you may also consider upgrading to the more expensive N-100 respirators recommended by the World Health Organization.

Or, go with a full facemask. Insofar as your preparedness efforts are concerned, you may also be able to kill two birds with one stone here and go with a full face mask that includes NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) protection like the US-made NATO SGE 400/3 Military Gas Mask.  If going with such a mask, be sure to include some NBC filters.

For protection inside of your home, Tess Pennington of Ready Nutrition recommends building a sick room that can be used to isolate suspected infections or even to be used as a quarantine/observation area for friends and family who may be coming to your home as part of your group lockdown plan.

Building a sick room may include supplies like:

• Heavy Duty Plastic Sheeting to go over doors, windows or other potential airborne entry points (4 millimeter home coverall)
• Duct tape
• Portable toilet if one is not attached directly to the sick room (Luggable Loo)
• Disposable trash and toilet bags *Note: Waste must be disposed of properly because it may be contaminated*
• Click here for acomplete list of items for a well stocked sick room

The takeaway here is this: You cannot depend on the government to give you accurate information until it is too late. Moreover, emergency services personnel will be overwhelmed and you will have only yourself and those in your lockdown group to depend on.

Plan on no outside help.

That means you need to have food, water, and other supplies on hand. Additionally, if we have a widespread emergency that brings down the commerce system you may need to head out to barter and trade with others for necessary supplies that may have been overlooked. In such an instance you may also want to have some precious metals on hand for trade. The Silver.com price for silver today is about $20. It may be a good time to stock up on some emergency ‘cash’ like silver eagles or pre-1965 US quarters and half-dollars which contain 90% silver. These trade instruments are recognizable and may come in handy.

Prepare now, because as we have seen with disasters past, waiting to do so until after the announcements are made will be too late.

ALERT: From Pigs to Monkeys, Ebola Goes Airborne. Nigerian doctor who treated Ebola patient infected with virus. 8 in Quarantine, 70 Under Surveillance

August 4th, 2014

CNN Gupta says this EBOLA is Different and this will go GLOBAL – Video

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/03/gupta-were-going-to-see-ebola-around-the-world/?hpt=hp_t2

Doctor who treated Ebola patient has contracted virus – Nigeria

http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/658359-doctor-who-treated-ebola-patient-has-contracted-virus-nigeria.html

Nigerian doctor down with Ebola virus

Mr. Chukwu said about eight people, who came in contact with the late Mr. Sawyer, have now been quarantined.

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/?p=166001?p=166001?p=166001?p=166001#sthash.O7co6dME.vZ8S4OJp.dpbs

From Pigs to Monkeys, Ebola Goes Airborne | HealthMap

When news broke that the Ebola virus had resurfaced in Uganda, investigators in Canada were making headlines of their own with research indicating the deadly virus may spread between species, through the air.

The team, comprised of researchers from the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease, the University of Manitoba, and the Public Health Agency of Canada, observed transmission of Ebola from pigs to monkeys. They first inoculated a number of piglets with the Zaire strain of the Ebola virus. Ebola-Zaire is the deadliest strain, with mortality rates up to 90 percent. The piglets were then placed in a room with four cynomolgus macaques, a species of monkey commonly used in laboratories. The animals were separated by wire cages to prevent direct contact between the species.

http://healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/article/pigs-monkeys-ebola-goes-airborne-112112

Hundreds of troops deployed in Sierra Leone & Liberia under emergency plan to fight outbreak Ebola:

http://news.yahoo.com/troops-deploy-sierra-leone-liberia-try-stop-ebola-145427847.html

Ebola Outbreak: Lagos State Wants Borders to be Closed Down

http://www.nigerianbulletin.com/threads/ebola-outbreak-lagos-state-wants-borders-to-be-closed-down.87059/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

In this broadcast Evangelist Anita asks the question:
“Is Ebola a Planned, Engineered, Pandemic?
This broadcast also includes:
– Obama signed Amendment to Executive Order on Biological Attack back in 2009
– Postal Service part of Ebola Outbreak – you will be surprised to learn in what way
– Why Ebola is no joke
– Quarantine Stations across America just for Ebola, staffed and functional
– Will psychological warfare ensue Americans before the actual plague?
and much, much, more…
Executive Order 13527 — Medical Countermeasures Following a Biological Attackhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-o…
Executive Order 13295: Revised List Of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases
http://www.cdc.gov/sars/quarantine/ex…

According to the Nigerian Minister, 70 people are now placed under surveillance while eight people would be quarantined on Monday for developing symptoms of the disease.
Apart from taking those steps, the government has also set up a treatment research group, that will carry out treatment research, receive and verify treatment claims as well as advise government on issues relating to Ebola virus in Nigeria.
Long convoys of military trucks ferried troops and medical workers on Monday to Sierra Leone’s far east, where the density of cases is highest. Military spokesman Colonel Michael Samoura said the operation, code named Octopus, involved around 750 military personnel.
Troops will gather in the southeastern town of Bo before travelling to isolated communities to implement quarantines, he added. Healthcare workers will be allowed to come and go freely, and the communities will be kept supplied with food.
In neighbouring Liberia, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf and ministers held a crisis meeting on Sunday on putting in place a series of anti-Ebola measures as police contained infected communities in the northern Lofa county.
Police were setting up checkpoints and roadblocks for key entrance and exit points to those infected communities and every resident would be stopped. Nobody would be allowed to exit quarantined communities. Troops were fanning out across Liberia to help to deal with the emergency.
“The situation will probably get worse before it gets better,” Liberian Information Minister Lewis Brown told Reuters. “We are over-stretched. We need support; we need resources; we need workers.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-04/nigerian-doctor-treating-ebola-casualty-contracts-virus-troops-deployed-liberia

Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/alert-from-pigs-to-monkeys-ebola-goes-airborne-nigerian-doctor-who-treated-ebola-patient-infected-with-virus-8-in-quarantine/#DMOU84LLDcpmxiBJ.99

MERS “Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome”

A NEW VIRUS IS A "THREAT TO THE WORLD"

Published June 24, 2013 | by Sentinel

Virus from the Middle East began to claim lives

By Callum Wood – June 4, 2013 –

A potentially deadly from the Middle East virus made his way to Europe, highlighting the increased potential pandemics facing us. The virus, respiratory syndrome coronavirus in the Middle East (MERS-CoV), formerly known as the new coronavirus was confirmed in 44 people worldwide since its initial detection. The majority of cases came from the Middle East. Scientists are puzzled as to how the virus could reach into humans, and where it has spread. The strain of the larger family of coronaviruses, which covers many illnesses from the common cold to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which does not help to identify the origin of the virus.

There is still a lot that scientists do not know about MERS-CoV. Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organization, gave a speech at the 66th World Health Assembly in Geneva on May 27, the deadly new strain of coronavirus. She said, "We will understand only too little about this virus when compared to the magnitude of the potential threat. Any new disease that is growing faster than our understanding is never under control. "

When a high-ranking member of one of the most prestigious health organizations in the world bluntly states that experts do not yet understand this deadly virus, people have to sit and listen.

Chan’s speech was full of warnings. She described the virus as "a threat to the entire world." Keep in mind that this statement was made ​​by someone who deals with health issues around the world on a daily basis. She sees this new strain as a major cause for concern, even more than the recent outbreak of H7N9 influenza in Asia.

His warning comes at a time when the MERS-CoV has traveled the Middle East to Europe. A man traveled from Saudi Arabia to France while carrying the virus without knowing it. When he fell ill and was taken to hospital, he then infected at least one other person before succumbing to the disease. The second infected man left the hospital before doctors realize what had happened. The incubation period of the virus is more than 12 days, which makes it difficult to detect. The man was then taken back to the hospital in critical condition.

Of the 44 cases reported worldwide, 23 people died, fixing the mortality rate at about 50 percent. With so many outstanding questions about the disease, Chan said: "We need more information, and we need it quickly, urgently."

But what kind of information do they need? Science can come up with something to try and eliminate this new disease, but how many deaths will it take to get there? There are several strains of influenza and other emerging diseases, but there is rarely another virus similar to penicillin from laboratories. As mentioned above, the H7N9 is resistant to drugs that have been used in the past.

The information that humanity needs is why these plagues fall on us in the first place. While the pharmaceutical industry has been effective in the fight against many diseases, new diseases continue to grow.

As we explained in our article titled, "The coming pandemic diseases," the four horsemen of the Apocalypse are biblical figures that many can identify, but few can really understand the meaning. One of those riders, the pale horse, means the spread of disease and pestilence in this period of the End Times. MERS-CoV may not be the beginning of a major pandemic, but it is connected to the most tragic time that have yet to befall mankind.

Do you understand the weather where you live? Are you ready for unprecedented devastation by diseases such as the world has ever known? For those who faithfully obey God, He promises;

"You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness, nor the plague that destroys at midday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at your right, you will not be achieved. "(Psalm 91: 5-7)

This is a great hope that we can have, knowing the difficult times ahead.

"And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and it will seem terrible things and great signs from heaven. "(Luke 21: 11)

http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/10669.18.0.0/society/health/new-virus-a-threat-to-the-entire-world

Happy 1st birthday Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)

A coronavirus schematic. The spiky bits give the virus
its name(corona=crown) and represent the
receptor binding, antigenic Spike protein.

…I can remember when you were just a novel little thing.
How you have grown young prince and how clever of you to emerge in a Kingdom of all places (corona=crown, named for it’s spikey appearance). You’ve certainly garnered attention worthy of a King given the relatively few cases of disease you gave been associated with in the first year we’ve known of you.
It was September 20th when Dr Zaki 1st alerted the world to the death of a Saudi man due to what looked to be a new coronavirus (CoV). Today we have over 135 cases 58 deaths (43%).
I’ve previously covered Zaki’s disocvery and the problems posed for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) by the way in which he announced that discovery, apparently without the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) foreknowledge. The way in which the sample was exported from the KSA without their prior consent was also problematic for them.

Soon after we heard of it, we had virus-detection assays with which we could seek out new cases. Were they used as they might have been in the days of the SARS-CoV? Nope. And there still seems to be only a single laboratory in KSA testing for MERS-CoV (despite reports of 3), with Dr Abdullah Al-Aeeri (a director of hospital infection control) claiming a 72-hour reporting turnaround time.
Is there an antibody detection assay that has been validated using a panel of known positive sera? Nope. There are some innovative antibody-detection methods around but why do they only include a single positive control? Is there no collaboration at all? Why is the KSA not leading the charge to develop these diagnostics and to hunt for an animal host? Why wait on advice from external organizations to screen samples?

Why has the necessary testing capacity not been built well before now? Is it to do with that pesky material transfer agreement? I hope not because there is little evidence for that being a real block to anything from a public health standpoint.
At least we have some new MERS-CoV sequences to celebrate the birthday with. Although they and the 9 preceding them represent less than half of the relatively small number of cases described to date. Why can’t the typing region sequences be released? That should really be part of the diagnostic process. Okay, those may not inform us about the evolution of key regions of the virus but they do confirm it is the strain we know. Why not focus on full or subgenomic Spike gene sequences? They might be a better sentinel for keeping tabs on MERS-CoV change over time.

Most of the detail about MERS-CoV and cases of MERS has come through the peer-reviewed scientific literature. That is pretty normal for respiratory viruses that are not notifiable. But it’s generally a slow medium. Is MERS infection a notifiable disease? It is in some countries (e.g. the US and New Zealand), but is it at the epicenter of the outbreak, the KSA? I’m not sure. It’s not obviously stated as such anywhere I looked on the KSA MOH website.
The World Health Organization politely notes:

WHO encourages all Member States to enhance their surveillance for severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) and to carefully review any unusual patterns of SARI or pneumonia cases. WHO urges Member States to notify or verify to WHO any probable or confirmed case of infection with MERS-CoV.

How’s that been working out? In a nice summary of the lack of communication, Helen Branswell and Declan Butler highlight that, as usual, everyone who was asked agreed that it’s not working out well at all. In fact it’s pretty woeful. And to add to matters, the latest WHO Disease Outbreak News (DON) takes the form of a summary of 18 "new" cases; no extra or confirmatory detail to be had from it. SO the KSA MOH is now the source for detail.

If we were talking about wanting more data on the monthly proportion of rhinovirus infections, the KSA would be justified in saying that the world doesn’t need to know (I’d like to but that’s my thing).

If we were talking about influenza, then there are plenty of international public health sites publishing these notifiable data on the internet; here’s Queensland, Australia’s for example.

But we’re talking about an emerging disease which kills half of the people it infects, is caused by a novel virus for which no host is known, which transmits between people in a way we don’t yet understand, which is shed from ill (or well) people for an undefined period of time (if at all), which remains infectious in the environment for who knows how long, which jumps to other countries, which may only cause severe disease in those who are already ill with another disease, which may be endemically spreading within the community as mild or asymptomatic infections, for which there is no vaccine or proven antiviral therapy available..I’d say it’s a no-brainer that at the very least the WHO deserves regular and detailed updates of what’s going on. Reading between the lines, that does not seem to be happening even behind closed doors.
The mass gathering of pilgrims known as the Hajj is fast approaching. This may trigger a large increase in MERS cases or, in the worst case, a pandemic. I personally believe it won’t go that far. We shouldn’t forget is the 2nd Hajj for MERS. But perhaps the virus is much more widespread than it was in October 2012. But without testing data, we can only guess.
So, it’s your 1st birthday MERS-CoV. But instead of wishing you a happy birthday you opportunistic, spiky little killer, I’m wishing Dr Zaki well and congratulating him on co-parenting the birth of this novel coronavirus. Going by what we’ve seen to date, his actions may have been the only way we would have ever heard of this virus otherwise.
And, as noted previously, but not given much air to in the above rant (thanks to @MicorbeLover for straightening me out)…

It’s very sad that there are real people in these numbers who have died from MERS. You may have noticed that I try and stick with the cold number-crunching aspect of these outbreaks. It’s not because I’m a heartless b&^$# but because that is not what this blog is about. That and my editorialisation and expositionary writing consume what little time I have spare. But I don’t feel that I have enough information to make any other comments about these or any other lives lost to infectious disease. I personally feel that any unexpected and acute loss of life (if I had to scale loss of life) is the worst kind of loss; it’s a waste of potential, a source of great sorrow for all involved and it’s something we should all strive to prevent, if we can. I know that’s not much to convey, but it’s all I can offer from my kinda comfy chair in Brisbane.

The Saudi MOH says it better in anyway; May Allah have mercy upon the deceased.

EBOLA UPDATE “Obama Brings Ebola Into America”

Obama Brings Ebola Into America After Signing Executive Order to Detain Sick Americans

Officials are importing Ebola into the U.S. which doctors have failed to contain in Africa

Image Credits: Sebástian Freire / Flickr (Medical workers)

by Kit Daniels | Infowars.com | August 2, 2014

---

Despite the fact that doctors in Africa cannot keep Ebola from spreading, United States officials brought an affected patient into the country only days after President Obama signed an executive order mandating the detention of Americans who show signs of “respiratory illness.”

The first known Ebola patient on U.S. soil, Dr. Kent Brantly, was flown into Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, today after contracting the disease in Liberia during the latest outbreak in West Africa which has claimed the lives of over 700.

“Video from Emory showed someone wearing a white, full-body protective suit helping a similarly clad person emerge from the ambulance and walk into the hospital early Saturday afternoon,” CNN reported.

This has stoked concerns among the American public that Ebola could now spread inside the U.S., especially since the virus has been difficult to contain in Africa.

“It sounds like the perfect script for a horror movie: A virus with no vaccine and no cure kills hundreds of people; despite containment efforts, it keeps spreading, but it’s actually all too real in West Africa, where doctors have said Ebola is now ‘out of control,’” wrote Sheila M. Eldred for Discovery News.

Hospitals in America may not fare any better considering that antibiotic-resistant “nightmare bacteria” spread from one medical facility in 2001 to 46 states by 2013.

“Allegedly the Ebola carriers will be quarantined in special rooms, but we already know that American hospitals cannot even contain staph infections,” columnist Paul Craig Roberts wrote. “What happens to the utensils, plates, cups, and glasses with which the ebola infected persons eat and drink and who gets to clean the bed pans?”

“One slip-up by one person, one tear in a rubber glove, and the virus is loose.”

This really highlights the reckless nature of the global elite and government officials for importing a virus into the country which has no specific treatment and a mortality rate of up to 90%.

Similarly, state-funded universities and other facilities across the U.S. are maintaining weaponized viruses for so-called “bio-defense” under the Project Bioshield Act passed by Congress in 2004, but because these facilities are only moderately secure for the most part, there is a real risk that a deadly virus could escape into the public and affect millions of Americans in an outbreak on the same level as the pandemics which killed 80% of Native American populations by the 19th century.

The National Research Council found that one of these laboratories in Kansas, for example, has a 70% chance that a virus will spread from its lab in the next 50 years, even though the facility is designated as “maximum security.”

And it should also be pointed out that this is just one lab out of many in the nation, a good percentage of which have even less security.

There is no doubt that an accidental or an orchestrated release of a virus from one of these labs could result in the deaths of millions as well as a draconian government response to the outbreak, including martial law, through both the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act drafted in 2001 and President Obama’s latest executive order which mandates the apprehension and detention of Americans who merely show signs of “respiratory illness.”

Simply put, instead of preventing Ebola and other viruses from spreading within the U.S., Obama is readying his administration for a power grab if a major pandemic breaks out throughout the country.

 

What Exactly is Ebola Virus

Ebola virus disease

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Ebola Virus)

"Ebola" redirects here. For other uses, see Ebola (disambiguation).

Ebola virus disease

Classification and external resources

1976 photograph of two nurses standing in front of Mayinga N., a person with Ebola virus disease; she died only a few days later due to severe internal hemorrhaging.

 

Ebola virus disease (EVD) or Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF) is the human disease caused by the Ebola virus. Symptoms typically start two days to three weeks after contracting the virus, with a fever, sore throat, muscle pains, and headaches. Typically nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea follow, along with decreased functioning of the liver and kidneys. At this point, some people begin to have problems with bleeding.^[1]

The disease may be acquired upon contact with blood or bodily fluids of an infected animal (commonly monkeys or fruit bats).^[1] It is not naturally transmitted through the air.^[2] Fruit bats are believed to carry and spread the virus without being affected. Once human infection occurs, the disease may spread between people as well. Male survivors may be able to transmit the disease via semen for nearly two months. In order to make the diagnoses, typically other diseases with similar symptoms such as malaria, cholera and other viral hemorrhagic fevers are first excluded. Blood samples may then be tested for viral antibodies, viral RNA, or the virus itself to confirm the diagnosis.^[1]

Prevention includes decreasing the spread of disease from infected monkeys and pigs to humans. This may be done by checking such animals for infection and killing and properly disposing of the bodies if the disease is discovered. Properly cooking meat and wearing protective clothing when handling meat may also be helpful, as is wearing protective clothing and washing hands when around a person with the disease. Samples of bodily fluids and tissues from people with the disease should be handled with special caution.^[1]

There is no specific treatment for the disease; efforts to help persons who are infected include giving either oral rehydration therapy or intravenous fluids.^[1] The disease has high mortality rate: often killing between 50% and 90% of those infected with the virus.^[1][3] EVD was first identified in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The disease typically occurs in outbreaks in tropical regions of Sub-Saharan Africa.^[1] Between 1976, when it was first identified, through 2013, fewer than 1,000 people a year have been infected.^[1][4] The largest outbreak to date is the ongoing 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak, which is affecting Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia.^[5] As of July 2014 more than 1320 cases have been identified.^[5] Efforts are ongoing to develop a vaccine; however, none yet exists.^[1]

Signs and symptoms

Symptoms of Ebola.^[6]

Signs and symptoms of Ebola usually begin abruptly with an influenza-like stage characterized by feeling tired, fever, headaches, and joint, muscle, and abdominal pain.^[7][8] Vomiting, diarrhea and loss of appetite are also common.^[8] Less common symptoms include: sore throat, chest pain, hiccups, shortness of breath and trouble swallowing.^[8] The average time between contracting the infection and the start of symptoms is 8 to 10 days, but can occur between 2 and 21 days.^[8] Skin manifestations may include a maculopapular rash (in about 50% of cases).^[9] Early symptoms of EVD may be similar to those of malaria, dengue fever, or other tropical fevers, before the disease progresses to the bleeding phase.^[7]

Bleeding

In the bleeding phase internal and subcutaneous bleeding may present itself through reddening of the eyes and bloody vomit.^[7] Bleeding into the skin may create petechiae, purpura, ecchymoses, and hematomas (especially around needle injection sites).

All people infected show some symptoms of circulatory system involvement, including impaired blood clotting.^[9] Bleeding from puncture sites and mucous membranes (e.g. gastrointestinal tract, nose, vagina and gums) is reported in 40–50% of cases.^[10] Types of bleeding known to occur with Ebola virus disease include vomiting blood, coughing it up or defecating it. Heavy bleeding is rare and is usually confined to the gastrointestinal tract.^[9][11]

In general, the development of bleeding symptoms often indicates a worse prognosis. However, contrary to popular belief, bleeding does not lead to hypovolemia and is not the cause of death (total blood loss is low except during labor). Instead, death occurs due to multiple organ failure (MOF) due to fluid redistribution, low blood pressure, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and focal tissue death.

Causes

Life cycles of the Ebolavirus

EVD is caused by four of five viruses classified in the genus Ebolavirus, family Filoviridae, order Mononegavirales. These four viruses are Bundibugyo virus (BDBV), Ebola virus (EBOV), Sudan virus (SUDV), Taï Forest virus (TAFV). The fifth virus, Reston virus (RESTV), is not thought to be disease-causing in humans. During an outbreak those at highest risk are health care workers and close contacts of those with the infection.^[12]

Transmission

It is not entirely clear how Ebola is spread.^[13] EVD is believed to occur after an ebola virus is transmitted to an initial human by contact with an infected animal’s bodily fluids. Human-to-human transmission can occur via direct contact with blood or bodily fluids from an infected person (including embalming of an infected dead person) or by contact with contaminated medical equipment, particularly needles and syringes.^[14] Transmission through oral exposure and through conjunctiva exposure is likely^[15] and has been confirmed in non-human primates.^[16] The potential for widespread EVD infections is considered low as the disease is only spread by direct contact with the secretions from someone who has symptomatic disease.^[14] The quick onset of symptoms makes it easier to identify sick individuals and limits a person’s ability to spread the disease by traveling. Because bodies of the deceased are still infectious, some doctors had to take measures to properly dispose of dead bodies in a safe manner despite local traditional burial rituals.^[17]

Medical workers who do not wear appropriate protective clothing may also contract the disease.^[18] In the past, hospital-acquired transmission has occurred in African hospitals due to the reuse of needles and lack of universal precautions.^[19]

EVD is not naturally transmitted through the air.^[2] They are, however, infectious as breathable 0.8–1.2 micrometre laboratory generated droplets;^[20] because of this potential route of infection, these viruses have been classified as Category A biological weapons.^[21] Recently the virus has been shown to travel without contact from pigs to non-human primates.^[22]

Bats drop partially eaten fruits and pulp, then land mammals such as gorillas and duikers feed on these fallen fruits. This chain of events forms a possible indirect means of transmission from the natural host to animal populations, which have led to research towards viral shedding in the saliva of bats. Fruit production, animal behavior, and other factors vary at different times and places that may trigger outbreaks among animal populations.^[23]

Reservoir

Bushmeat being prepared for cooking in Ghana, 2013. Human consumption of equatorial animals in Africa in the form of bushmeat has been linked to the transmission of diseases to people, including Ebola.^[24]

Bats are considered the most likely natural reservoir; plants, arthropods, and birds have also been considered.^[25] Bats were known to reside in the cotton factory in which the first cases for the 1976 and 1979 outbreaks were employed, and they have also been implicated in Marburg virus infections in 1975 and 1980.^[26] Of 24 plant species and 19 vertebrate species experimentally inoculated with EBOV, only bats became infected.^[27] The absence of clinical signs in these bats is characteristic of a reservoir species. In a 2002–2003 survey of 1,030 animals including 679 bats from Gabon and the Republic of the Congo, 13 fruit bats were found to contain EBOV RNA fragments.^[28] As of 2005, three types of fruit bats (Hypsignathus monstrosus, Epomops franqueti, and Myonycteris torquata) have been identified as being in contact with EBOV. They are now suspected to represent the EBOV reservoir hosts.^[29][30]

Between 1976 and 1998, in 30,000 mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods sampled from outbreak regions, no ebolavirus was detected apart from some genetic traces found in six rodents (Mus setulosus and Praomys) and one shrew (Sylvisorex ollula) collected from the Central African Republic.^[26][31] Traces of EBOV were detected in the carcasses of gorillas and chimpanzees during outbreaks in 2001 and 2003, which later became the source of human infections. However, the high lethality from infection in these species makes them unlikely as a natural reservoir.^[26]

Transmission between natural reservoir and humans is rare, and outbreaks are usually traceable to a single case where an individual has handled the carcass of gorilla, chimpanzee, or duiker.^[32] Fruit bats are also eaten by people in parts of West Africa where they are smoked, grilled or made into a spicy soup.^[30][33]

Virology

Genome

Electron micrograph of an Ebola virus virion

Like all mononegaviruses, ebolavirions contain linear nonsegmented, single-strand, non-infectious RNA genomes of negative polarity that possesses inverse-complementary 3′ and 5′ termini, do not possess a 5′ cap, are not polyadenylated, and are not covalently linked to a protein.^[34] Ebolavirus genomes are approximately 19 kilobase pairs long and contain seven genes in the order 3′-UTR–NP–VP35–VP40–GP–VP30–VP24–L–5′-UTR.^[35] The genomes of the five different ebolaviruses (BDBV, EBOV, RESTV, SUDV, and TAFV) differ in sequence and the number and location of gene overlaps.

Structure

Like all filoviruses, ebolavirions are filamentous particles that may appear in the shape of a shepherd’s crook or in the shape of a "U" or a "6", and they may be coiled, toroid, or branched.^[35] In general, Ebolavirions are 80 nm in width, but vary somewhat in length. In general, the median particle length of ebolaviruses ranges from 974 to 1,086 nm (in contrast to marburgvirions, whose median particle length was measured at 795–828 nm), but particles as long as 14,000 nm have been detected in tissue culture.^[36]

Replication

The ebolavirus life cycle begins with virion attachment to specific cell-surface receptors, followed by fusion of the virion envelope with cellular membranes and the concomitant release of the virus nucleocapsid into the cytosol. The viral RNA polymerase, encoded by the L gene, partially uncoats the nucleocapsid and transcribes the genes into positive-strand mRNAs, which are then translated into structural and nonstructural proteins. Ebolavirus RNA polymerase (L) binds to a single promoter located at the 3′ end of the genome. Transcription either terminates after a gene or continues to the next gene downstream. This means that genes close to the 3′ end of the genome are transcribed in the greatest abundance, whereas those toward the 5′ end are least likely to be transcribed. The gene order is, therefore, a simple but effective form of transcriptional regulation. The most abundant protein produced is the nucleoprotein, whose concentration in the cell determines when L switches from gene transcription to genome replication. Replication results in full-length, positive-strand antigenomes that are, in turn, transcribed into negative-strand virus progeny genome copy. Newly synthesized structural proteins and genomes self-assemble and accumulate near the inside of the cell membrane. Virions bud off from the cell, gaining their envelopes from the cellular membrane they bud from. The mature progeny particles then infect other cells to repeat the cycle.^[37]

Pathophysiology

Pathogenesis schematic

Endothelial cells, mononuclear phagocytes, and hepatocytes are the main targets of infection. After infection, a secreted glycoprotein (sGP) known as the Ebola virus glycoprotein (GP) is synthesized. Ebola replication overwhelms protein synthesis of infected cells and host immune defenses. The GP forms a trimeric complex, which binds the virus to the endothelial cells lining the interior surface of blood vessels. The sGP forms a dimeric protein that interferes with the signaling of neutrophils, a type of white blood cell, which allows the virus to evade the immune system by inhibiting early steps of neutrophil activation. These white blood cells also serve as carriers to transport the virus throughout the entire body to places such as the lymph nodes, liver, lungs, and spleen.^[38]

The presence of viral particles and cell damage resulting from budding causes the release of cytokines (to be specific, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, etc.), which are the signaling molecules for fever and inflammation. The cytopathic effect, from infection in the endothelial cells, results in a loss of vascular integrity. This loss in vascular integrity is furthered with synthesis of GP, which reduces specific integrins responsible for cell adhesion to the inter-cellular structure, and damage to the liver, which leads to coagulopathy.^[39]

Diagnosis

The most important method of diagnosis EVD is the medical history, especially travel and occupational history and the person’s exposure to wildlife. EVD can be confirmed by isolating ebolaviruses from or by detection of ebolavirus antigen or genomic or subgenomic RNAs in patient blood or serum samples during the acute phase of EVD. Ebolavirus isolation is usually performed by inoculation of grivet kidney epithelial Vero E6 or MA-104 cell cultures or by inoculation of human adrenal carcinoma SW-13 cells, all of which react to infection with characteristic cytopathic effects.^[40][41]

Filovirions can easily be visualized and identified in cell culture by electron microscopy due to their unique filamentous shapes, but electron microscopy cannot differentiate the various filoviruses alone despite some overall length differences.^[36] Immunofluorescence assays are used to confirm ebolavirus presence in cell cultures. During an outbreak, virus isolation and electron microscopy are most often not feasible options. The most common diagnostic methods are therefore RT-PCR in conjunction with antigen-capture ELISA, which can be performed in field or mobile hospitals and laboratories.^[42] Indirect immunofluorescence assays (IFAs) are not used for diagnosis of EVD in the field anymore.

Classification

Phylogenetic tree comparing the Ebolavirus and Marburgvirus. Numbers indicate percent confidence of branches.

The genera Ebolavirus and Marburgvirus were originally classified as the species of the now-obsolete Filovirus genus. In March 1998, the Vertebrate Virus Subcommittee proposed in the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) to change the Filovirus genus to the Filoviridae family with two specific genera: Ebola-like viruses and Marburg-like viruses. This proposal was implemented in Washington, DC on April 2001 and in Paris on July 2002. In 2000, another proposal was made in Washington, D.C., to change the "-like viruses" to "-virus" resulting in today’s Ebolavirus and Marburgvirus.^[43]

Rates of genetic change are 100 times slower than influenza A in humans, but on the same magnitude as those of hepatitis B. Extrapolating backwards using these rates indicates that Ebolavirus and Marburgvirus diverged several thousand years ago.^[44] However, paleoviruses (genomic fossils) of filoviruses (Filoviridae) found in mammals indicate that the family itself is at least tens of millions of years old.^[45] Fossilized viruses that are closely related to ebolaviruses have been found in the genome of the Chinese hamster.^[46]

Differential diagnosis

The symptoms of EVD are similar to those of Marburg virus disease.^[47] It can also easily be confused with many other diseases common in Equatorial Africa such as other viral hemorrhagic fevers, falciparum malaria, typhoid fever, shigellosis, rickettsial diseases such as typhus, cholera, gram-negative septicemia, borreliosis such as relapsing fever or EHEC enteritis. Other infectious diseases that should be included in the differential diagnosis include the following: leptospirosis, scrub typhus, plague, Q fever, candidiasis, histoplasmosis, trypanosomiasis, visceral leishmaniasis, hemorrhagic smallpox, measles, and fulminant viral hepatitis.^{[citation needed]} Non-infectious diseases that can be confused with EVD are acute promyelocytic leukemia, hemolytic uremic syndrome, snake envenomation, clotting factor deficiencies/platelet disorders, thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, Kawasaki disease, and even warfarin poisoning.^{[48][49][50][51]}

Prevention

A researcher working with the Ebola virus while wearing a BSL-4 positive pressure suit to avoid infection

Behavioral changes

Ebola viruses are contagious with prevention predominantly involves behavior changes, proper personal protective equipment, and disinfection. Governments and individuals often quarantine the area where the disease is occurring; while the lack of roads and transportation may help.^[52]

Techniques to avoid infection involve not contacting infected blood or secretions, including from those who are dead.^[13] This involves suspecting and diagnosing the disease early and using standard precautions for all patients in the healthcare setting.^[53] Recommended measures when caring for those who are infected include: wearing protective clothing including: masks, gloves, gowns and goggles, equipment sterilization and isolating them.^[13]

Due to lack of proper equipment and hygienic practices, large-scale epidemics have occured mostly in poor, isolated areas without modern hospitals or well-educated medical staff. Traditional burial rituals, especially those requiring embalming of bodies, should be discouraged or modified.^[53] Airline crews who fly to areas of these areas of the world are taught to identify Ebola and are to isolate anyone who has symptoms.^[54]

Vaccine

No vaccine is currently available for humans.^[1][55][56] The most promising candidates are DNA vaccines^[57] or vaccines derived from adenoviruses,^[58] vesicular stomatitis Indiana virus (VSIV)^[59][60][61] or filovirus-like particles (VLPs)^[62] because these candidates could protect nonhuman primates from ebolavirus-induced disease. DNA vaccines, adenovirus-based vaccines, and VSIV-based vaccines have entered clinical trials.^{[63][64][65][66]}

Vaccines have protected nonhuman primates. Immunization takes six months, which impedes the counter-epidemic use of the vaccines. In 2003, a vaccine using an adenoviral (ADV) vector carrying the Ebola spike protein therefore was tested on crab-eating macaques. The monkeys twenty-eight days later were challenged with the virus and remained resistant.^[58] A vaccine based on attenuated recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) vector carrying either the Ebola glycoprotein or the Marburg glycoprotein in 2005 protected nonhuman primates,^[67] opening clinical trials in humans.^[63] The study by October completed the first human trial, over three months giving three vaccinations safely inducing an immune response. Individuals for a year were followed, and, in 2006, a study testing a faster-acting, single-shot vaccine began; this new study was completed in 2008.^[64] Trying the vaccine on a strain of Ebola that more resembles the one that infects humans is the next step.^{[citation needed]}

On 6 December 2011, the development of a successful vaccine against Ebola for mice was reported. Unlike the predecessors, it can be freeze-dried and thus stored for long periods in wait for an outbreak.^[68] An experimental vaccine made by researchers at Canada’s national laboratory in Winnipeg was used in 2009 to pre-emptively treat a German scientist who might have been infected during a lab accident.^[69] However, actual EBOV infection could never be demonstrated without a doubt.^[70] Experimentally, recombinant vesicular stomatitis Indiana virus (VSIV) expressing the glycoprotein of EBOV or SUDV has been used successfully in nonhuman primate models as post-exposure prophylaxis.^{[71][72][clarification needed]}

Laboratory

Ebola viruses are World Health Organization Risk Group 4 pathogens, requiring biosafety level 4-equivalent containment. Laboratory researchers must be properly trained in BSL-4 practices and wear proper personal protective equipment.

Treatment

A hospital isolation ward in Gulu, Uganda, during the October 2000 outbreak

No ebolavirus-specific treatment exists.^[56] Treatment is primarily supportive in nature and includes minimizing invasive procedures, balancing fluids and electrolytes to counter dehydration, administration of anticoagulants early in infection to prevent or control disseminated intravascular coagulation, administration of procoagulants late in infection to control hemorrhaging, maintaining oxygen levels, pain management, and administration of antibiotics or antimycotics to treat secondary infections.^[73][74][75] Early treatment may increase the chance of survival.^[76]

Prognosis

The disease has a high mortality rate: often between 50 percent and 90 percent.^[1][3] If an infected person survives, recovery may be quick and complete. Prolonged cases are often complicated by the occurrence of long term problems, such as inflammation of the testicles, joint pains, muscle pains, skin peeling, or hair loss. Eye symptoms, such as light sensitivity, excess tearing, iritis, iridocyclitis, choroiditis and blindness have also been described. EBOV and SUDV may be able to persist in the semen of some survivors, which could give rise to infections and disease via sexual intercourse.^[1]

Epidemiology

For more about specific outbreaks and their descriptions, see List of Ebola outbreaks.

CDC worker incinerates medical waste from Ebola patients in Zaire in 1976

While investigating an outbreak of Simian hemorrhagic fever virus (SHFV) in November 1989, an electron microscopist from USAMRIID discovered filoviruses similar in appearance to Ebola in tissue samples taken from crab-eating macaque imported from the Philippines to Hazleton Laboratories Reston, Virginia.^[78]

Blood samples were taken from 178 animal handlers during the incident.^[79] Of those, six animal handlers eventually seroconverted. When the handlers did not become ill, the CDC concluded that the virus had a very low pathogenicity to humans.^[80]

Because of the virus’s high mortality, it is a potential agent for biological warfare.^[81]

Given the lethal nature of Ebola, and since no approved vaccine or treatment is available, it is classified as a biosafety level 4 agent, as well as a Category A bioterrorism agent by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It has the potential to be weaponized for use in biological warfare.^[82] The BBC reports in a study that frequent outbreaks of Ebola may have resulted in the deaths of 5,000 gorillas.^[83]

2007 to 2011

As of 30 August 2007, 103 people (100 adults and three children) were infected by a suspected hemorrhagic fever outbreak in the village of Kampungu, Democratic Republic of the Congo. The outbreak started after the funerals of two village chiefs, and 217 people in four villages fell ill. The World Health Organization sent a team to take blood samples for analysis and confirmed that many of the cases were the result of Ebolavirus.^[84][85] The Congo’s last major Ebola epidemic killed 245 people in 1995 in Kikwit, about 200 miles (320 km) from the source of the August 2007 outbreak.^[86]

On 30 November 2007, the Uganda Ministry of Health confirmed an outbreak of Ebola in the Bundibugyo District. After confirmation of samples tested by the United States National Reference Laboratories and the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization confirmed the presence of a new species of Ebolavirus, which was tentatively named Bundibugyo.^[87] The epidemic came to an official end on 20 February 2008. While it lasted, 149 cases of this new strain were reported, and 37 of those led to deaths.

An International Symposium to explore the environment and filovirus, cell system and filovirus interaction, and filovirus treatment and prevention was held at Centre Culturel Français, Libreville, Gabon, during March 2008.^[88] The virus appeared in southern Kasai Occidental on 27 November 2008,^[89] and blood and stool samples were sent to laboratories in Gabon and South Africa for identification.

On 25 December 2008, it was reported that the Ebola virus had killed 9 and infected 21 people in the Western Kasai province of the Democratic Republic of Congo.^[90] On 29 December, Doctors Without Borders reported 11 deaths in the same area, stating that a further 24 cases were being treated. In January 2009, Angola closed down part of its border with the Democratic Republic of Congo to prevent the spread of the outbreak.^[91]

On 12 March 2009, an unidentified 45-year-old scientist from Germany accidentally pricked her finger with a needle used to inject Ebola into lab mice. She was given an experimental vaccine never before used on humans. Since the peak period for an outbreak during the 21-day Ebola incubation period had passed as of 2 April 2009, she had been declared healthy and safe. It remains unclear whether or not she was ever actually infected with the virus.^[92]

In May 2011, a 12-year-old girl in Uganda died from Ebola (Sudan subspecies). No further cases were recorded.^[93]

2012 outbreaks

In July 2012, the Ugandan Health Ministry confirmed 13 deaths due to an outbreak of the Ebola-Sudan variant^[94] in the Kibaale District.^[95] On 28 July, it was reported that 14 out of 20 (70% mortality rate) had died in Kibaale.^[96] On 30 July, Stephen Byaruhanga, a health official in Kibaale District, said the Ebola outbreak had spread from one remote village to several villages.^[97]

The World Health Organization‘s (WHO) global and alert response network reported on August 3 that the suspected case count had risen to 53, including 16 deaths. Of these cases, five were confirmed by UVRI as Ebola cases. There were no confirmed cases outside of Kibaale District except for a patient who was medically evacuated to Kampala District and then died. WHO and CDC support was on the ground in Uganda supporting the government response. There were no confirmed cases outside of Uganda.^[98] Included among populations confirmed to be affected were prisoners in Kabbale prison. ^[99] Dr. Joaquim Saweka, the WHO representative to Uganda, reported that the outbreak was under control and that everyone known to have had contact with a known Ebola patient was in isolation.^[100]

On 8 August, the Ugandan Ministry of Health recorded 23 probable and confirmed cases, including 16 deaths. Ten cases were confirmed by the Uganda Virus Research Institute as Ebola. 185 people who came into contact with probable and confirmed Ebola cases were followed during the incubation period of 21 days.^[101]

On 17 August, the Ministry of Health of the Democratic Republic of the Congo reported an outbreak of the Ebola-Bundibugyo variant^[102] in the eastern region.^[103] By 21 August, the WHO reported a total of 15 cases and 10 fatalities.^[104] No evidence suggested that this outbreak was connected to the Ugandan outbreak.^[105] By 13 September 2012, the WHO revealed that the virus had claimed 32 lives and that the probable cause of the outbreak was tainted bush meat hunted by local villagers around the towns of Isiro and Viadana.^[106]

2014 outbreak

Main article: 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreakpIn February 2014, a strain of the Ebola Virus appeared in Guinea. This is the first Ebola virus outbreak registered in the region. As of April 10, 157 suspected and confirmed cases and 101 deaths were reported in Guinea, 22 suspected cases in Liberia including 14 deaths, 8 suspected cases in Sierra Leone including 6 deaths, and 1 suspected case in Mali.^[107][108] Investigations on these are under way.^{[109][110][111]}By late June 2014 the death toll had reached 390 with over 600 cases reported.^[112] By 23 July 2014, the World Health Organization had reported 1201 confirmed cases including 672 deaths since the epidemic began in March.^[113] On July 31 2014, WHO reports the death toll has reached 826 from 1440 cases. ^[114]

Emory University Hospital was the first US hospital to care for patients exposed to Ebola.^[115] Two American medical providers, Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol, were exposed while treating infected patients in Liberia. Arrangements were made for them to be transported to Emory via speciality aircraft. Emory Hospital has a specially built isolation unit set up in collaboration with the CDC to treat patients exposed to certain serious infectious diseases.^{[116][117][118]} On 2 August 2014 Brantly was flown in to Dobbins Air Force Base in Marietta, Georgia, and transferred to Emory Hospital.^[119]

History

For more about the outbreak in Virginia, see Reston virus.

Cases of ebola fever in Africa from 1979 to 2008.

Ebola virus first emerged in 1976 in outbreaks of Ebola hemorrhagic fever in Zaire^[120] and Sudan.^[121] The strain of Ebola that broke out in Zaire has one of the highest case fatality rates of any human virus, roughly 90%.^[122]

The name of the disease originates from one of those first recorded outbreaks in 1976 in Yambuku, Democratic Republic of the Congo (then Zaire), which lies on the Ebola River.^[120]

In 1990, Hazelton Research Products’ Reston Quarantine Unit in Reston, Virginia suffered a mysterious outbreak of fatal illness among a shipment of Crab-eating Macaque monkeys imported from the Philippines. The company’s veterinary pathologist sent tissue samples from dead animals to the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland, where a laboratory test known as an ELISA assay showed antibodies to Ebola virus.

Shortly afterward, a US Army team headquartered at USAMRIID went into action to euthanize the monkeys which had not yet died, bringing those monkeys and those which had already died of the disease to Ft. Detrick for study by the Army’s veterinary pathologists and virologists, and eventual disposal under safe conditions.

The Philippines and the United States had no previous cases of Ebola infection, and upon further isolation researchers concluded it was another strain of Ebola, or a new filovirus of Asian origin, which they named Reston ebolavirus (REBOV) after the location of the incident.^[123]

Some scientists also believe that the Plague of Athens, which wiped out about a third of its inhabitants during the Peloponnesian War, may have been caused by Ebola. However, these studies are conflicting, and point to other possible diseases such as typhoid.^[124]

Other animals

In general, outbreaks of EVD among human populations result from handling infected wild animal carcasses. In general, declines in animal populations precede outbreaks among human populations. Since 2003, such declines have been monitored through surveillance of animal populations with the aim of predicting and preventing EVD outbreaks in humans.^[125] Recovered carcasses from gorillas contain multiple Ebola virus strains, which suggest multiple introductions of the virus. Bodies decompose quickly and carcasses are not infectious after three to four days. Contact between gorilla groups is rare, suggesting transmission among gorilla groups is unlikely, and that outbreaks result from transmission between viral reservoir and animal populations.^[126]

Outbreaks of EVD may have been responsible for an 88% decline in tracking indices of observed chimpanzee populations in 420 square kilometer Lossi Sanctuary between 2002 and 2003.^[126] Transmission among chimpanzees through meat consumption constitutes a significant 5.2 (1.3–21.1 with 95% confidence) relative risk factor, while contact between individuals, such as touching dead bodies and grooming, do not.^[127]

Domestic animals

Ebola virus can be transmitted to dogs and pigs.^[128] While dogs may be asymptomatic, pigs tend to develop symptomatic disease.

Recent research

Hyperimmune equine immunoglobulin raised against EBOV was used in Russia to treat a laboratory worker who accidentally infected herself with EBOV. The treatment, however, was unsuccessful in saving her life.^{[129][clarification needed]} Other promising experimental therapeutic regimens rely on antisense technology. Both small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and phosphorodiamidate morpholino oligomers (PMOs) targeting the EBOV genome could prevent disease in nonhuman primates.^[130][131]

Researchers from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases also found that FDA-approved estrogen receptor drugs used to treat infertility and breast cancer (clomiphene and toremifene) inhibit the progress of Ebola virus in infected mice.^[132] Ninety percent of the mice treated with clomiphene and fifty percent of those treated with toremifene survived the tests.^[132] The authors of the study concluded that given their oral availability and history of human use, these drugs would be excellent candidates for repurposing efforts to treat Ebola virus infection in remote geographical locations, either on their own or together with other antiviral drugs.

During an outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1995, seven of eight patients having received blood transfusions from convalescent individuals survived.^[133] However, this potential treatment is considered controversial.^[134]

A study in 2012 found a plant based treatment, which successfully provided protection in monkeys, administered post exposure.^[135]

Antibodies against Ebola Zaire and Reston viruses have been found in fruit bats in Bangladesh, thus identifying potential virus hosts and signs of the filoviruses in Asia.

 

Why Experts Were Surprised That Ebola-Infected Doctor Could Walk Into a Hospital

Aug 2, 2014, 5:16 PM ET

By GILLIAN MOHNEY via World News

Plane Carrying American Ebola Victim Lands in Georgia

Next Video Ebola Infected Aid Workers to Be Treated in Emory Isolation Room

Auto Start: On | Off

The fact that an Ebola-infected American was able to walk into a Georgia hospital today after his return to the United States surprised even medical experts familiar with the ravages of the deadly disease.

Dr. Kent Brantly arrived at Emory University Hospital today after being evacuated from Monrovia, Liberia where he was being treated for Ebola. Although Brantly had shown signs of the disease for the past week, he managed to walk into the hospital with the support of medical personnel.

All three wore protective gear to contain the deadly virus.

Brantly, along with missionary Nancy Writebol, was infected with the disease after working with Ebola-infected patients in Liberia’s capital city. This current Ebola outbreak is the worst on record and has killed more than 700 in three countries in West African and infected more than 1,300.

Before Brantly arrived in Atlanta, not much about his condition had been made public. According to Samaritan’s Purse, the aid organization he was working for, Brantly was in "serious but stable" condition before being flown to the U.S.

Get All the ABC News coverage on the Ebola Outbreak Including Videos, News, and Explainers

Ebola: What you need to know about the deadly outbreak

Nearly 1 in 3 of all Ebola deaths in the last 40 years… have occurred since March

What is Ebola? How does it spread? Who is at risk? What you need to know

Is it safe to bring Ebola patients to the US?

When the doctor was able to walk into the hospital, at least two experts said they were surprised but pleased that the doctor seemed to be doing well.

This strain of the Ebola virus has a fatality rate of approximately 60 percent and past outbreaks had fatality rates as high as 90 percent.

Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, said he felt "guardedly optimistic," since Ebola usually advances quickly and Brantly had shown signs of the disease for at least a week.

"The first thing we all said ‘Whoa he’s not on a vent,’" Schaffner said of realizing that Brantly did not need a ventilator to help him breathe. "In general [with] Ebola is … you progress on a downhill course. If you’re at this point and you’re holding your own you’re entitled to be optimistic."

Courtesy Samaritans Purse

PHOTO: Dr. Kent Brantly speaks with a worker outside the ELWA Hospital in Monrovia, Liberia

While the incubation period can last from eight to 21 days, once someone develops symptoms they can be sick for a wider range of time. Schaffner explained that when someone shows signs of Ebola they tend to go downhill fairly rapidly and consistently.

Scaffner explained that once a person shows signs of Ebola the symptoms don’t usually disappear until the person overcomes the virus. As a result, they don’t usually have periods where they could appear healthy and relapse.

Schaffner said the fact that Brantly appeared to be well enough to walk, indicates that at least for the moment his heart rate, respiratory rate and other vital signs were not critical.

Dr. Stephen Morse, a professor of Epidemiology at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, said although it does not guarantee Brantly will fully recover, the fact that he could walk 10 days after showing Ebola symptoms is a "good sign."

"If you can walk in, that’s a very good sign. I was surprised but pleasantly," Morse said of seeing Brantly walk to the hospital entrance.

Jack Kearse/Emory University

PHOTO: The Ebola-stricken Americans will be treated this isolation rooms and others similar to it.

Morse said that Brantly was obviously not out of the woods and that he would be under constant monitoring to ensure his blood pressure, lung function, kidney function and other vitals remained steady.

"If he really does get better, we want to know his secret," Morse said.

After Brantly’s arrival, his wife Amber Brantly released a statement saying she is relieved her husband has arrived in the U.S.

"It was a relief to welcome Kent home today," Amber Brantly said in a statement. "I spoke with him, and he is glad to be back in the U.S. I am thankful to God for his safe transport and for giving him the strength to walk into the hospital."

 

2nd American With Ebola Expected to Arrive in U.S. Tuesday

Odd of a pandemic in America increases

Image Credits: Public domain

by ABC News | August 3, 2014

---

The plane carrying the second American patient who contracted Ebola while working in Liberia will leave the U.S. for the West African country later today and is expected to return Tuesday, a U.S. official told ABC News.

The private air ambulance is scheduled to take off today and arrive in Liberia after one stopover, the official said. The plane will then bring aid worker Nancy Writebol to Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Ga., and is expected to land midday Tuesday.

The same plane brought Dr. Kent Brantly to Georgia on Saturday. He’s undergoing treatment at Emory University Hospital, where Writebol will be treated after she arrives in the U.S.

 

Ebola outbreak: Western drugs firms have not tried to find vaccine ‘because virus only affects Africans’, says UK’s top public health doctor

Professor John Ashton accuses pharmaceutical industry of ‘moral bankruptcy’

Jane Merrick

Political Editor

Sunday 03 August 2014

Britain’s leading public health doctor today blames the failure to find a vaccine against the Ebola virus on the "moral bankruptcy" of the pharmaceutical industry to invest in a disease because it has so far only affected people in Africa – despite hundreds of deaths.

Professor John Ashton, the president of the UK Faculty of Public Health, says the West needs to treat the deadly virus as if it were taking hold in the wealthiest parts of London rather than just Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia. Writing in The Independent on Sunday, Professor Ashton compares the international response to Ebola to that of Aids, which was killing people in Africa for years before treatments were developed once it had spread to the US and UK in the 1980s.

He writes: "In both cases [Aids and Ebola], it seems that the involvement of powerless minority groups has contributed to a tardiness of response and a failure to mobilise an adequately resourced international medical response.

"In the case of Aids, it took years for proper research funding to be put in place and it was only when so-called ‘innocent’ groups were involved (women and children, haemophiliac patients and straight men) that the media, politicians, scientific community and funding bodies stood up and took notice."

The Ebola outbreak has so far claimed the lives of at least 729 people across Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Nigeria, according to the latest figures from the World Health Organisation (WHO), although the number is likely to be far higher.

Yesterday, a US relief organisation confirmed that two US aid workers who contracted the disease in Liberia had left the country. Dr Kent Brantly was being treated in a specialised hospital unit in Atlanta, Georgia, after becoming the first person with the disease to arrive on US soil yesterday evening. The second aid worker, Nancy Writebol, was due to land on a separate private flight.

On Friday, the WHO warned that the outbreak in West Africa was "moving faster than our efforts to control it". The organisation’s director general, Dr Margaret Chan, warned that if the situation continued to deteriorate, the consequences would be "catastrophic" to human life. Professor Ashton believes that more money must be funnelled into research for treatment.

"We must respond to this emergency as if it was in Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster. We must also tackle the scandal of the unwillingness of the pharmaceutical industry to invest in research [on] treatments and vaccines, something they refuse to do because the numbers involved are, in their terms, so small and don’t justify the investment. This is the moral bankruptcy of capitalism acting in the absence of a moral and social framework."

Western countries are on high alert after Patrick Sawyer, a civil servant for the Liberian government, died last week after arriving at Lagos airport – the first known case in Nigeria. International airline hubs are the focus of attention because of the high volume of passengers flying into and out of West Africa every day. Dubai’s Emirates airline began a ban yesterday on its flights in Guinea over the crisis, with the suspension lasting until further notice.

Professor Ashton welcomed the decision by the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, to convene a meeting of the Government’s crisis committee, Cobra, last week to discuss the UK’s preparedness for cases of Ebola in this country.

Development of a vaccine is in the early stages in the US, but this is on a small scale and there is little hope of one being ready to treat the current outbreak in West Africa. Dr Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institutes of Health, an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services, has said it has plans possibly to begin testing an experimental Ebola vaccine on people in mid-September, following encouraging results in pre-clinical trials on monkeys. Earlier this month, the US Food and Drug Administration put a hold on a trial upon healthy volunteers by Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation to ensure their potential Ebola treatment has no ill-effects, as it sought more information to ensure the safety of volunteers.

Professor Ashton said: "The real spotlight needs to be on the poverty and environmental squalor in which epidemics thrive and the failure of political leadership and public health systems to respond effectively. The international community has to be shamed into real commitment… if the root causes of diseases like Ebola are to be addressed."

 

Ebola: covert op in a hypnotized world

Image Credits: YouTube

by Jon Rappoport | August 3, 2014

---

You show people a germ and you tell them what it is and what it does, and people salute. They give in. They believe. They actually know nothing. But they believe.

The massive campaign to make people believe the Ebola virus can attack at any moment, after the slightest contact, is quite a success.

People are falling all over themselves to raise the level of hysteria.

This is what is preventing a hard look at Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the Republic Guinea, three African nations where poverty and illness are staples of everyday life for the overwhelming number of people.

The command structure in those areas has a single dictum: don’t solve the human problem.

Don’t clean up the contaminated water supplies, don’t return stolen land to the people so they can grow food and finally achieve nutritional health, don’t solve overcrowding, don’t install basic sanitation, don’t strengthen their immune systems so they can ward off germs, don’t let the people have power—because then they would throw off the local and global corporate juggernauts that are sucking the land of all its resources.

In order not to solve the problems of the people, a cover story is necessary. A cover story that exonerates the power structure.

A cover story like a germ.

It’s all about the germ. The demon. The strange attacker. (See, for example, this March 27th, Reuter’s article entitled “Beware of bats: Guinea issues bushmeat warning after Ebola outbreak”.)

Forget everything else. The germ is the single enemy.

Forget the fact, for example, that a recent study of 15 pharmacies and 5 hospital drug dispensaries in Sierra Leone discovered the widespread and unconscionable use of beta-lactam antibiotics.

These drugs are highly toxic. One of their effects? Excessive bleeding.

Which just happens to be the scary “Ebola effect” that’s being trumpeted in the world press.

(J Clin Microbiol, July 2013, 51(7), 2435-2438), and Annals of Internal Medicine Dec. 1986, “Potential for bleeding with the new beta-lactam antibiotics”)

Forget the fact that pesticide companies are notorious for shipping banned toxic pesticidesto Africa. One effect of the chemicals? Bleeding.

Forget that. It’s all about the germ and nothing but the germ.

Forget the fact that, for decades, one of the leading causes of death in the Third World has been uncontrolled diarrhea. Electrolytes are drained from the body, and the adult or the baby dies.

Any sane doctor would make it his first order of business to replace electrolytes with simple supplementation—but no, the standard medical line goes this way:

The diarrhea is caused by germs in the intestinal tract, so we must pile on massive amounts of antibiotics to kill the germs.

The drugs kill off all bacteria in the gut, including the necessary and beneficial ones, and the patient can’t absorb what little food he has access to, and he dies.

Along the way, he can also bleed.

But no, all the bleeding comes from Ebola. It’s the germ. Don’t think about anything else.

Forget the fact that adenovirus vaccines, which have been used in Liberia, Guinea, and Liberia (the epicenter of Ebola), have, according to vaccines.gov, the following adverse effects: blood in the urine or stool, and diarrhea.

No, all the bleeding comes from the Ebola germ. Of course. Don’t think about anything else.

Reporter Charles Yates uncovered a scandal in Liberia centering around the Firestone Rubber Plantation—chemical dumping, poisoned water.

And skin disease.

“Rash” is listed as one of the Ebola symptoms.

So is diarrhea.

Liberia Coca Cola bottling plant: foul black liquid seeping into the environment—animals dying.

Chronic malnutrition and starvation—conditions that are endemic in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea—are the number-one cause of T-cells depletion in the world.

T-cells are a vital component of the immune system. When that system is compromised, any germ coming down the pipeline will cause epidemics and death.

Getting the picture?

Blame it all on the germ.

Allow the corporate-government domination to continue.

Israel: International Anger Mounts

By Felicity Arbuthnot

Global Research, July 23, 2014

 

Councilor Hugh Lewis takes down the Israeli flag in Dublin, Ireland. (Independent.ie)

–

“You take my water

Burn my olive trees

Destroy my house

• Take my job                      

Steal my land

Imprison my father

Kill my mother

Bomb my country

Starve us all

Humiliate us all

But … I am to blame: I shot a rocket back.” (Placard first seen in Gaza, 2012.)

The “most moral army in the world” from “the only democracy in the Middle East” has attacked hospitals, a home for the disabled, a geriatric hospice, demolished five mosques, razed entire neighborhoods, erased entire families – the youngest – so far – just three days old if you do not count the unborn, as in the case of twenty nine year old Samar Al Hallaq (1) killed with her two sons, aged four and five, other members of her family and carrying her third child. Her husband was critically injured.

Yet again a war is declared against children and the young. Forty three percent of Gaza’s population is aged 0-14 and just under twenty one percent, 15-24. (Index Mundi, 2013.) Thus sixty four percent, 0-24.

As Israel trades on eternal victim status whilst murdering neighbouring, fellow Semites with seeming legal impunity, stealing land, obliterating homes, nullifying history preceding even the coming of Christ in the land of his birth, the UN bleats weakly, as ever, of “concern” and “regret” some countries have had enough.

Ecuador has recalled their Ambassador from Israel, Chile has suspended their free trade agreement negotiations. Bolivia’s President Evo Morales and Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro have called the assault on Gaza genocide and “extermination”, with Maduro demanding that the UN address the: “systematic violation of the Human Rights of the Palestinian population in Gaza by the State of Israel and adopt the necessary measures to halt those violations.” (2.) Venezuela severed all relations with Israel after its last massacre, “Cast Lead” over Christmas and New Year 2008-2009.

As Prime Minister David Cameron calls the onslaught on the 1.7 million people of Gaza in their forty mile long ghetto “not disproportionate”, President Maduro stated: “It is clear you cannot morally compare occupied and massacred Palestine with the occupying state, Israel, which also possesses military superiority and acts on the margins of international law.”

Meanwhile, amid massive protests in South Africa, the African National Congress in Parliament (who suffered their own long years of apartheid) is calling for the Israeli Ambassador to leave with “immediate effect” and for the South African Ambassador to Tel Aviv to be immediately recalled.

The ANC Chief Whip, Steone Sizane, MP., in a blistering address said: “The office of the UN Secretary General issues statements which have no effect. The UN Security Council must stand up and act to support vulnerable Palestinian people at the time when they need their protection.

“The situation involving Palestine and Israel is an undeclared war, in which the aggressor, Israel, has destroyed the Palestinian economy, robbed people of their land, unilaterally changed borders, and unilaterally built a wall of exclusion to keep Palestinians out of their land. When it feels provoked, it unleashes the most sophisticated military hardware on a defenceless people. Palestinians have been reduced to cheap labor for the Israel economy.

“This relentless destruction of the Palestinian territory and its people by Israel must be stopped. The international community needs to act in unison on this matter.”

Mr Sizane’s call is backed by a host of political and civil bodies including faith groups, the Young Communist League, the National Association of Democratic Lawyers, seventy two leading South African Jews and many others. (3)

In Europe, the Norwegian government is resisting pressure to expel the Israeli Ambassador from pro-Palestinian and human rights organizations with the leader of the Joint Committee for Palestine (Fellesutvalget for Palestina, FuP), Anna Lund Bjørnsen telling Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK): “Norway can not uncritically maintain close diplomatic relations with a state that does not show respect for human life, international treaties or UN conventions.”

Even the resisting Foreign Minister Børge Brende acknowledges: “the suffering you see in Gaza and the West Bank”, and cites Israel’s particular responsibility in driving the peace process because its illegal settlements were the key to the conflict.

Labor Party MP and Chairwoman of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee in the Norwegian parliament, Anniken Huitfeldt is widely backed by seven left leaning parties in her call for boycotting products manufactured by Israel in the occupied territories “without wasting time.”

Two parties supporting the boycott, the Labor Party and the Center Party, are demanding a review Norway’s policy of selling arms to third-world countries, which resell those arms to Israel.(5)

In neighbouring Sweden calls are mounting by those involved in academic and cultural boycotts for all collaboration between Swedish and Israeli institutions to cease, with abstention: “from participation in EU funded projects in which Israel is involved. A letter was also addressed to the Board of the Royal Institute of Technology, which has a comprehensive cooperation program with the Technion University in Haifa.”(6)

In Ireland, Dublin City Council unanimously called on the Irish government to enforce an arms and trade embargo on Israel (7) and seventeen EU governments have now: “published online guidance warning their citizens and businesses about risks involved in trade and other economic links with illegal Israeli settlements.” The latest twelve to issue warnings did so last week, after the start of the assault on Gaza. They are: Portugal, Austria, Malta, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Greece, Slovakia, Belgium and Croatia, “in a move coordinated at EU level.” France, Italy and Spain issued similar guidelines the previous week.(8)

Across the world in the Maldives the government has scrapped three agreements with Israel and discussions are gathering pace to prohibit the import of Israeli goods. The tropical nation of 1,200 islands, at some potential cost to the economy has said they will also reject investors from Israel, noting international condemnation of Israel’s current actions. (9)

On 19^th July, the Guardian published a letter signed by six Nobel Laureates, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Adolfo Peres Esquivel, Jody Williams, Mairead Maguire, Rigoberta Menchú and Betty Williams and numerous academic, intellectual, artistic and signaturies from many countries, including João Antonio Felicio, the president of the International Trade Union Confederation, and Zwelinzima Vavi, the general secretary of the Confederation of South African Trade Unions calling for the UN and governments to impose a military embargo on Israel.(10)

The letter underlines starkly the culpability of the international community in Israel’s ongoing genocidal actions: “Over the period 2009-2019, the US is set to provide military aid to Israel worth $30bn, while Israeli annual military exports to the world have reached billions of dollars. In recent years, European countries have exported billions of euros worth of weapons to Israel, and the European Union has furnished Israeli military companies and universities with military-related research grants worth hundreds of millions.”

It concludes: “Governments that express solidarity with the Palestinian people in Gaza, facing the brunt of Israel’s militarism, atrocities and impunity, must start with cutting all military relations with Israel. Palestinians today need effective solidarity, not charity.”

One Nobel Laureate’s signature was not on the letter, President “Change we can believe in” Obama.

As the death toll exceeded five hundred and serious injuries three thousand two hundred Norwegian Dr Mads Gilbert stated on Democracy Now: “This was truly a massacre, and the injuries were just horrible … Children came in without heads and totally dismantled by the shelling of the residential areas.”

On the same day (Monday 21^st July) Obama merely said weakly that he had: “serious concerns.” Pathetic.

Israel too now has “serious concerns” of another kind. Hours after US airlines Delta, United and US Airways cancelled all flights to Israel on Tuesday 22^nd July, the US Federal Aviation Authority issued an advisory banning all US carriers from flying to Tel Aviv. Air Canada has also cancelled their flights. The European Aviation Safety Agency has followed suit issuing a “strong recommendation” that airlines avoid travel to Israel until further notice. Air France, EasyJet, Germany’s flag carrier Lufthansa, and the Netherland’s KLM were among European airlines that had already cancelled services.

The financial implications for Israel can only be imagined. Having spent two weeks telling the world of the mortal danger the country faced (in spite of crowds of residents picnicking in the open, standing on car roofs to watch the destruction of Gaza) the Transportation Minister and Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that flying to the country is “safe” and that: “There is no reason whatsoever that American companies would stop their flights and hand terror a prize.” Somewhat contradictory all round.

Further, last year 3.5 million tourists visited Israel, boosting the economy by over twelve Billion $s. This year Yahoo Travel cites Leon Avigad, the developer of Browns Hotels, a chain of boutique hotels in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem who says the conflict was already: “devastating us economically … We are losing tons of money by the minute. The entire profit from the summer (to date) is wiped out.” In the south of the country: “Hotels are completely empty … almost everything is closed.”

Surprisingly, even Israel’s loyal friends, the US State Department have been advising against all but most essential travel to Israel since February.

Especially courageous are the stands across the world by Jews themselves. Ten thousand orthodox Jews demonstrated in support of Gaza in New York, and across the world they, with other Jewish denominations have taken a visible and courageous stand.

Jewish Voices for Peace statement by their Rabbinical Council perhaps encapsulates what many believe. Headed “Stop the Bombing. Hold Israel Accountable” it reads in part:

“We are currently amidst ‘the three weeks’ – the annual Jewish period of quasi-mourning that leads to the fast day of Tisha B’Av. This is the season that bids us to look deeply into the soul of our community and examine the ways that our sinat chinam – baseless hatred – has led to our communal downfall.

“Driven by the spirit of this season, we cannot help but speak out in response to the horrific loss of life currently taking place in Gaza, at the hands of the Israeli military. We deplore the Israeli government’s military crackdown in the West Bank that led to its lethal, military onslaught on the people of Gaza.  We mourn the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, including children.

“We condemn Hamas’ rockets attacks on Israel and the anxiety, injury and death they have caused. But we cannot view this as a war between two equal sides. Israel has unlimited hi-tech weaponry; it dominates Gazan airspace, its borders, its utilities and economy…

“We can not stand idly by as the Jewish State acts with such wanton disregard, with such sinat chinam, for the humanity of the mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, children and elders of Gaza.

“As Jews, we abhor the abuse of human rights that are standard practice of our fellow Jews in the Israeli government and Israeli military. This is not the path of justice.” (11)

Also grieving is NATO Member Turkey, declaring three days of mourning for Gaza this week.

Yesterday activists from Jewish Voices for Peace were arrested for a peaceful demonstration at the Friends of the Israeli Defence Forces on New York’s Broadway.

In Israel, Peace Now and Hand in Hand participants are being “shouted down or physically attacked” for their principled stance. Last week, in Tel Aviv: “about 250 Jewish protesters were set upon, punched and pushed by a well-organized group of right wingers in an attack that left several people with bruises, black eyes, or other injuries. Another (of) about 1,000 people, was also attacked” with eggs and plastic bottles.(12)

Perhaps it is time for President Obama to earn his Nobel Peace status.

This week Dr Mads Gilbert addressed a passionate appeal to him, writing:

“Mr Obama, do you have a heart? I invite you, spend one night – just one night – with us in Al Shifa’a Hospital. I am convinced, one hundred per cent, it would change history. Nobody with a heart and power could ever walk away from a night in Shifa’a without being determined to end the slaughter of the Palestinian people.” If only.

The last word goes to increasingly intellectually challenged Prime Minister David Cameron, who declared on July 21^st: “We can’t stand by when a strong nation bullies a weak one.” Indeed. Sadly, he was talking about Russia, who, for those fully bolted down, seems to have bullied no one.

Notes

1.http://pht2012.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/a-devastating-loss-to-the-tapestry/

2.http://rt.com/news/174144-south-america-gaza-genocide/

3.http://www.bdssouthafrica.com (subscribe, contact, site temporarily under construction.)

4.http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/07/16/calls-to-expel-israeli-ambassador/

5.http://en.shafaqna.com/international-news/item/30340-middleeastmonitorcom/-norwegian-mp-calls-for-boycott-of-israel-over-its-gaza-offensive.html

6.http://psabi.se/?p=621

7. http://www.bdsmovement.net/2014/palestine-campaigners-welcome-dublin-city-council-motion-calling-for-end-to-attacks-on-gaza-and-for-arms-embargo-trade-sanctions-on-israel-12332#sthash.98WcoSgL.dpuf

8.http://www.bdsmovement.net/2014/17-eu-members-take-action-against-corporate-complicity-12200#sthash.xN7vcoes.dpuf

9.http://www.sun.mv/english/23670

10http://www.bdsmovement.net/2014/nobel-celebrities-call-for-military-embargo-12316#sthash.BlqKTzg0.dpuf

11.http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/campaigns/end-the-bombing-hold-israel-accountable

12.http://www.globalresearch.ca/israeli-peace-movement-members-shouted-down-and-physically-attacked/5392698

Monsanto is Murdering us all

Urgent action alert: EPA about to raise allowable concentrations of glyphosate on food crops, edible oils and animal feed   

Tuesday, June 18, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles…)

(NaturalNews) This is an urgent action alert from Natural News and the Health Ranger. Public comments are due by July 1 to object to new EPA regulations which are already in place, allowing glyphosate contamination of food crops, edible oils and waterways at concentrations which are thousands of times higher than the amount needed to cause cancer.
The new regulation, which can be viewed HERE, sets the following regulations regarding glyphosate residues on crops:
• It allows forage and hay teff to contain up to 100 ppm glyphosate (that’s over one million times the concentration needed to cause cancer according to a recent study). See PubMed source here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170
• Allows oilseed crops (flax oil, canola oil, soybean oil, olive oil, etc.) to contain up to 40 ppm glyphosate (which is over 100,000 times the concentration needed to cause cancer)
• RAISES the allowable glyphosate contamination level of root crops (such as potatoes) from 200 ppb to 6000 ppb.
• Allows glyphosate contamination of fruits at anywhere from 200 ppb to 500 ppb.
Importantly, the EPA says no one even commented on all this when it was initially filed! "There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing." Since then, a total of just 396 people have posted a public comment at the time of this story being published.
You can post your comments with the EPA at this page:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132-00…

EPA declares glyphosate to be perfectly safe

Borrowing a page right out of Monsanto’s quack science playbook, the EPA says:
A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats found no systemic effects in any of the parameters examined (body weight, food consumption, clinical signs, mortality, clinical pathology, organ weights, and histopathology).
The EPA even offers this utterly absurd, false statement as justification for its allowable contamination levels of glyphosate: "EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary." (SOURCE)
Huh? Do you understand this? The EPA is saying glyphosate is so incredibly safe that it is not even necessary to study its possible carcinogenic effects in humans. No science needed! The EPA simply waves a magic (Monsanto) wand and says, "Shazam! Glyphosate is safe enough to EAT!"
The EPA, of course, is sadly mistaken. It is apparently not aware of two crucial facts to consider in all this:
1) The Seralini study released last year showed an alarming increase in cancer tumors in rats that were fed glyphosate in their drinking water.
2) Monsanto has already been found guilty of committing scientific fraud by altering the results of "scientific" studies in order to trick regulators.
The "scientific" data proving glyphosate to be "safe" has been fabricated! And the EPA is basing its conclusions on fabricated, corporate-quackified junk science that has one purpose: trick regulators into thinking the deadly poison is safe, thereby vastly increasing the usage of the chemical by farmers.

ACTION ITEM: Post your comments to protest the EPA’s glyphosate poisoning of the American people

It is crucial that We the People let the EPA know that raising the allowable levels of glyphosate in foods is unacceptable. This is especially true given the recent studies linking glyphosate to breast cancer, a disease that is ravaging women across America and has reached epidemic levels.
Post your comments in the following ways:
METHOD #1 – POSTING ONLINE
1) Go to this page:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132-00…
2) Click the "Comment Now!" button on the top right.
3) Enter your information and comment, then click "Submit." Be sure to include reasons WHY you believe the EPA should not allow such high levels of glyphosate in foods, edible oils and animal feed. You can quote pages like GMOevidence.com:
http://gmoevidence.com/location/roundup-evidence/
You can also quote this excellent article from GM Watch which explains why the corporate-controlled media (and industry) so viciously attacked the Seralini rat study, trying to discredit it:
http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14514
METHOD #2 – MAIL IT IN
1) Write your letter of protest. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132 on the first page of your letter.
2) Mail it to: (all mail must be received by July 1st)
OPP Docket
Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.
Washington, DC 20460–0001
METHOD #3 – EMAIL ANDREW ERTMAN
Please use Method #1 or #2 if you want your comments to actually count. But if you also wish to email or phone the EPA person from the Office of Pesticide Programs, you may contact:
Andrew Ertman, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone number: (703) 308-9367
Email address: ertman.andrew@epa.gov
Note: If you choose to email Andrew Ertman, please be polite in your email. Do NOT send stupid things like death threats or emails full of profanity. Make your case clearly and politely, and ask him to review the full breadth of the scientific evidence now available instead of just the selected subset Monsanto wants EPA scientists to be aware of.

Over 200 million pounds of glyphosate poison is a chemical attack on America

The following map, compiled by the USDA, shows the use of glyphosate across America:

This is also a map of the mass poisoning of America with a chemical that has been scientifically linked to an increased risk of cancer.
Compare it to this map showing the rates of cancer by state:

By the way, Monsanto has already been caught committing scientific fraud in attempting to fake safety studies on glyphosate. The company also engaged in wildly false advertising, claiming RoundUp was "safer than table salt" (implying that it’s safe to eat in high doses).
Now the EPA is about to allow glyphosate in animal feed at concentrations that are one million times the concentration needed to cause cancer.
At the same time, the EPA continues to allow glyphosate at 700 ppb in public drinking water, too.
We are all being mass poisoned by this deadly chemical, and the EPA is actively conspiring with the chemical industry to downplay the real dangers of glyphosate, pretending it’s safe enough to eat in quantities that are orders of magnitude larger than should be allowed.
Allowing 100 ppm of glyphosate in animal feed is equivalent to allowing 1000 ppm of lead in children’s candy. It’s a deadly poison that inundates our food supply at such high concentrations that it’s guaranteed to cause deadly diseases in huge numbers of people.

EPA document is a blueprint for the mass euthanasia of Americans

This EPA regulation document is a blueprint for billions of dollars in profits for the cancer industry. It’s also a death sentence for America’s soils, farmers and food consumers. And it is insane policies like this that will ultimately lead to the downfall and collapse of modern human civilization… a civilization so stupid that it poisons its own food, water, soils and even its own children… all to make a quarterly profit on the selling of a deadly poison.
Humanity is being mass-euthanized by GMOs and glyphosate, and the EPA is standing by and openly allowing it to happen. This is an agency that did tremendous good back in the 1970’s but has since become nothing more than a corporate sellout and a purveyor of poison.
The EPA wants you to eat glyphosate. There’s no harm, they say. Lick it up!

What concentration of glyphosate should be allowed in foods? No more than 10 ppt

There is no safe level of exposure to glyphosate. The chemical has now been shown to promote cancer cell proliferation at ppt concentrations. This demands that glyphosate be eliminated from being sold in the USA — BANNED for life.
Remember: Glyphosate is the new DDT. But it’s much worse than DDT because its toxic effects kick in at far lower concentrations. If a "safe" level of glyphosate exposure were based on legitimate scientific studies that weren’t faked by Monsanto, it would have to be set no higher than 10 ppt.
In other words, it would need to be virtually undetectable even by the most precise laboratory equipment available today.
Glyphosate has no place in a civilized nation. I call it "Satan’s Molecule" because it is a destroyer of life and a destroyer of worlds.
No wonder it was invented by a scientist working for — guess who? — MonSatan.

Take action today. Comments are due by July 1, and if the EPA doesn’t hear from the People, it’s going to do whatever Monsanto tells it to do. Heck, it will probably do that anyway, but at least if you post a comment, when all of us die from cancer you will know that you did not willfully participate in the mass murder of Americans.

************

California allows up to 1000 times more glyphosate in drinking water than needed

…to cause breast cancer in women

Mike Adams
Natural News
June 17, 2013

Late last week, a story broke that revealed glyphosate — the chemical name of Roundup herbicide — multiplies the proliferation of breast cancer cells by 500% to 1300%… even at exposures of just a few parts per trillion (ppt).

The study, published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, is entitled, “Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors.” You can read the abstract here.

There’s a whole lot more to this story, however, but to follow it, you need to understand these terms:

ppm = parts per million = 10 ^(-6) = number of parts out of a million

ppb = parts per billion = 10 ^(-9), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppm

ppt = parts per trillion = 10 ^(-12), which is 1,000 times smaller than ppb and 1,000,000 times smaller than ppm

The study found that breast cancer cell proliferation is accelerated by glyphosate in extremely low concentrations: ppt to ppb. The greatest effect was observed in the ppb range, including single-digit ppb such as 1 ppb.

This news, all by itself, sent shockwaves across the ‘net all weekend. Women were asking things like: “You mean to tell me that glyphosate residues on crops in just ppt or ppb concentrations can give me breast cancer?” It doesn’t exactly translate like that. It depends on how much you eat vs. your body mass (nanograms of glyphosate per kilogram of body weight). But with ridiculously small amounts of this chemical now being correlated to cancer cell proliferation, you don’t have to eat much at all in order to put yourself at risk.

But it’s not just eating glyphosate that’s the problem. You’re also DRINKING it.

California allows 1,000 ppb of glyphosate in drinking water

In December of 1997, California released its Glyphosate in Drinking Water California Public Health Goal (PHG) document. You can view the document yourself at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/glypho_c.pdf

The document openly admits:

Glyphosate is a non-selective systemic herbicide used in agriculture, rights-of-way and aquatic systems. Exposure to glyphosate may occur from its normal use due to drift, residues in food crops and from runoff into potential drinking water sources.

It then goes on to state something borrowed straight from Monsanto’s quack science team: “Glyphosate is not mutagenic or teratogenic and there is no evidence for reproductive toxicity in multigeneration studies in rats.”

Based on this blatant lie, California set an upper limit of “1.0 mg/L (1,000 ppb) for glyphosate in drinking water.”

Yes, that’s 1,000 times higher than the amount now shown to cause a 500% to 1300% increase in cancer cell proliferation.

What’s even more shocking is that California’s allowable exposure level was nearly 50% HIGHER than the federal (EPA) level — 700 ppb.

Yes, California — the state where more people are concerned about GMOs than seemingly anywhere else — actually used Monsanto-sounding language in its “official” report that set a higher water contamination level than the federal government!

Glyphosate carcinotoxicity was documented years earlier

Even though California released this document in 1997, the state was already willfully ignoring a growing body of scientific evidence documenting glyphosate toxicity. For example, a study published two years earlier — in 1995 — in the Journal of Pesticide Reform (Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1995) written by Caroline Cox concluded:

Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. …In animal studies, feeding of glyphosate for three months caused reduced weight gain, diarrhea, and salivary gland lesions. Lifetime feeding of glyphosate caused excess growth and death of liver cells, cataracts and lens degeneration, and increases in the frequency of thyroid, pancreas, and liver tumors.

Glyphosate-containing products have caused genetic damage in human blood cells… reduced sperm counts in male rats… an increase in fetal loss…

In other words, California knew — or should have known — that glyphosate was harmful to humans. But the California government willfully ignored this evidence and seemingly went out of its way to incorporate deceptive Monsanto spin into its “Public Health Goal” documents, thereby allowing 1,000 times higher levels of glyphosate in drinking water than we now know to cause cancer cell proliferation.

Ten years later, California lowers its level by just 10%

Fast forward to 2007. After a public comment period which was no doubt dominated by disinfo-spewing Monsanto trolls, the state of California issued an updated Public Health Goal (PHG) document.

You can view that document here:
http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/080406dglyphosate.pdf

It concludes that the allowable glyphosate exposure for all Californians should be lowered to 900 ppb — still nine hundred times higher than the amount needed to accelerate cancer cell growth as we see in the study released last week.

This 2007 document from the California government also borrows language that sounds like it’s right out of Monsanto’s P.R. department: “Based on the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity study results, glyphosate is not likely to pose a cancer hazard to humans,” it says.

Now the evidence is becoming clear: Monsanto’s chemicals are killing women

Now it’s 2013. We’ve seen the horrific results of the GMO rat study revealing the growth of massive tumors in rats exposed to GMOs and Roundup (glyphosate). We’ve also now seen the “parts per trillion” studyshowing cancer cell proliferation being caused by ultra-low concentrations of glyphosate.

We also know the biotech industry has gone to ridiculous lengths to spread disinfo on all this — to try to discredit scientists who speak out against GMOs and glyphosate, to get scientists blackballed from the industry, and to buy off politicians and members of the press to make sure there is no coverage granted to any scientific studies reporting the dangers of genetically modified crops (and their related chemical herbicides).

Glyphosate is the new DDT

Based on what we’re seeing now, I believe glyphosate is the most toxic chemical that has ever been widely deployed across our food supply. Glyphosate is the new DDT, and it’s contaminating our waterways, soils, food and bodies.

Furthermore, the California government has clearly been complicit in allowing extremely high levels of glyphosate to contaminate the public drink water, thereby causing tens of millions of Californians to be poisoned with concentrations of glyphosate that promote cancer cell growth.

And what will the California government tell you now that the truth has come out? Now that they’ve allowed their own population to be exposed to a thousand times the concentration needed to accelerate the growth of cancer tumors?

“Run for the cure!” And don’t label GMOs, either, because you don’t have a right to know whether you’re eating deadly poison in your food.

Join the Monsanto Video Revolt, July 24, 2013

Take part in the global video revolt against Monsanto. Learn more at:
www.MonsantoVideoRevolt.com

 

Glyphosate – GlyphoSatan

Glyphosate, Part 1: Toxicology.

Caroline Cox. Journal of Pesticide Reform, Volume 15, Number 3, Fall 1995. Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Eugene, OR.

Glyphosate, Part 1: Toxicology

by Caroline Cox

Introduction

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide widely used to kill unwanted plants both in agriculture and in nonagricultural landscapes. Estimated use in the U.S. is between 19 and 26 million pounds per year.

Most glyphosate-containing products are either made or used with a surfactant, chemicals that help glyphosate to penetrate plant cells.

Glyphosate-containing products are acutely toxic to animals, including humans. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, cardiac depression, gastrointestinal pain, vomiting, and accumulation of excess fluid in the lungs. The surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself; the combination of the two is yet more toxic.

In animal studies, feeding of glyphosate for three months caused reduced weight gain, diarrhea, and salivary gland lesions. Lifetime feeding of glyphosate caused excess growth and death of liver cells, cataracts and lens degeneration, and increases in the frequency of thyroid, pancreas, and liver tumors.

Glyphosate-containing products have caused genetic damage in human blood cells, fruit flies, and onion cells.

Glyphosate causes reduced sperm counts in male rats, a lengthened estrous cycle in female rats, and an increase in fetal loss together with a decrease in birth weights in their offspring.

It is striking that laboratory studies have identified adverse effects of glyphosate or glyphosate-containing products in all standard categories of toxicological testing.

Two serious cases of fraud have occurred in laboratories conducting toxicology and residue testing for glyphosate and glyphosate-containing products.

————————————————

Advertised as herbicides that can "eradicate weeds and unwanted grasses effectively with a high level of environmental safety,"1 glyphosate-based herbicides can seem like a silver bullet to those dealing with unwanted vegetation. However, an independent, accurate evaluation of their health and environmental hazards can draw conclusions very different than those presented by these advertisements. The following summary of glyphosate’s hazards is intended to serve that purpose. It will appear in two parts: Part 1 discusses the toxicology of glyphosate, its metabolites, and the other ingredients of glyphosate products and Part 2 will discuss human exposure to glyphosate and its ecological effects.

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine (Figure 1), is a post-emergent, systemic, and non-selective herbicide used to kill broad-leaved, grass, and sedge species.2 It has been registered as a broad spectrum herbicide in the U.S. since 1974 and is used to control weeds in a wide variety of agricultural, lawn and garden, aquatic, and forestry situations.3

Most glyphosate herbicides contain the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate. A related chemical, the sodium salt of glyphosate, acts as a growth regulator in sugar cane and peanuts and is marketed for that purpose. The monoammonium salt of glyphosate is also marketed as an herbicide and growth regulator.4

Glyphosate products are manufactured by Monsanto Company worldwide. The herbicide is marketed under a variety of trade names: Roundup (including Roundup D-Pak, Roundup Lawn and Garden Concentrate, and Roundup Ready-to-Use) and Rodeo are the most common U.S. trade names.2 The sodium salt is sold as Quotamaster. The monoammonium salt is sold as Deploy Dry.2 Other brand names used for the isopropylamine salt are Accord,5 Vision, Ranger, and Sting.2

As an herbicidal compound, glyphosate is unusual in that essentially no structurally related compounds show any herbicidal activity.6

Use

Glyphosate is the eighth most commonly used herbicide in U.S. agriculture and the second most commonly used herbicide in nonagricultural situations. Estimated annual use according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is between 15 and 20 million pounds in agriculture and between 4 and 6 million pounds elsewhere.7 The largest agricultural uses are in the production of soybeans, hay and pasture, corn, and oranges.4

About 25 million applications per year are made in U.S. households; most of these are made on lawns or outdoor areas where a total vegetation kill is wanted.8

In California, where pesticide use reporting is more comprehensive than in other states, about 3.4 million pounds were used in 1992; about 25 percent of this was used along rights-of-way, while 15 percent was used on almonds and 10 percent was used on grapes.9

Mode of Action

The mode of action of glyphosate is "not known at this time,"4 according to EPA. However, "herbicidal action probably arises from the inhibition of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids."10 These amino acids (phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan) are used in the synthesis of proteins and are the essential for growth and survival of most plants. One particular enzyme important in aromatic amino acid synthesis, called 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3- phosphate synthase, is inhibited by glyphosate.10 Glyphosate also "may inhibit or repress"4 two other enzymes, chlorismate mutase and prephrenate hydratase, involved in other steps of the synthesis of the same amino acids. These enzymes are all part of what is called the shikimic acid pathway, present in higher plants and microorganisms but not in animals.11

Two of the three aromatic amino acids (tryptophan and phenylalanine) are essential amino acids in the human diet because humans, like all higher animals, lack the shikimic acid pathway, cannot synthesize these amino acids, and rely on their foods to provide these compounds. Tyrosine is synthesized in animals through another pathway.12

Glyphosate can affect enzymes not connected with the shikimic acid pathway. In sugar cane, it reduces the activity of one of the enzymes involved in sugar metabolism, acid invertase. This reduction appears to be mediated by auxins, plant hormones.13

Glyphosate also affects enzyme systems found in animals and humans. In rats, injection into the abdomen decreases the activity of two detoxification enzymes, cytochrome P-450 and a monooxygenase, and decreases the intestinal activity of the enzyme aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase (another detoxification enzyme).14

"Inert" Ingredients in Glyphosate-containing Products

Virtually every pesticide product contains ingredients other than what is called the "active" ingredient(s), those designed to provide killing action. Their purpose is to make the product easier to use or more efficient. These ingredients are called "inert," although they are often not biologically, chemically, or toxicologically inert. In general, they are not identified on the label of the pesticide product.

In the case of glyphosate products, many "inerts" have been identified. Roundup contains a polyethoxylated tallowamine surfactant (usually abbreviated POEA), related organic acids of glyphosate, isopropylamine, and water. Both Rodeo and Accord contain glyphosate and water.15 (However, label instructions usually require adding a surfactant during use.15) See "Toxicology of ‘Inert’ Ingredients of Glyphosate- containing Products," p. 17, for basic information about these "inert" ingredients.

Many of the toxicology studies that will be summarized in this factsheet have been conducted using glyphosate, the active ingredient, alone. Some have been conducted with commercial products containing glyphosate and "inert" ingredients. When toxicology testing is not done with the product as it is actually used, it is impossible to accurately assess its hazards.

We will discuss both types of studies, and will identify insofar as is possible exactly what material was used to conduct each study.

Acute Toxicity to Laboratory Animals

Glyphosate’s acute oral median lethal dose (the dose that causes death in 50 percent of a population of test animals; LD50) in rats is greater than 4,320 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of body weight. This places the herbicide in Toxicity Category III (Caution).4 Its acute dermal toxicity (dermal LD50) in rabbits is greater than 2,000 mg/kg of body weight, also Toxicity Category III.4

If animals are given glyphosate in other ways, it is much more acutely toxic. When given intraperitoneally (the dose applied by injection into the abdomen), glyphosate is between 10 and 20 times more toxic to rats (with an LD50 between 192- 467 mg/kg)2,16 than it is when given orally. Intraperitoneal injection also caused fever, cessation of breathing, and convulsions.17 While this kind of exposure is not one that would be encountered under conditions of normal use, these studies indicate the kinds of effects glyphosate can potentially cause in mammals.

Commercial glyphosate-containing products are more acutely toxic than glyphosate alone. Two recent (1990 and 1991) studies compared the amount of Roundup required to cause death in rats with the amount of either glyphosate alone or POEA alone that would cause death. The studies found that in combination, the amount of glyphosate and POEA required to kill was about 1/3 of a lethal dose of either compound separately. The Roundup formulation tested was also more toxic than POEA alone.18,19

As with glyphosate alone, glyphosate-containing products are more toxic when administered other ways than orally. Inhalation of Roundup by rats caused "signs of toxicity in all test groups,"20 even at the lowest concentration tested. These signs included a dark nasal discharge, gasping, congested eyes, reduced activity, hair standing erect,21 and body weight loss following exposure.20 Lungs were red or blood-congested.21 The dose required to cause lung damage and mortality following pulmonary administration of Roundup Lawn and Garden Concentrate or Roundup-Ready-to-Use (the glyphosate product is directly forced into the trachea, the tube carrying air into the lungs) was only 1/10 the dose causing damage through oral administration.18

Effects on the Circulatory System: When dogs were given intravenous injections of glyphosate, POEA, or Roundup so that blood concentrations were approximately those found in humans who ingested glyphosate, a variety of circulatory effects were found. Glyphosate increased the ability of the heart muscle to contract. POEA reduced the output of the heart and the pressure in the arteries. Together (Roundup), the result was cardiac depression.22

Eye Irritation: Glyphosate is classified as a mild eye irritant by EPA, with effects lasting up to seven days4 although more serious effects were found by the World Health Organization. In two of the four studies they reviewed, glyphosate was "strongly irritating"2 to rabbits’ eyes and a third test found it "irritating."2 In tests of glyphosate- containing products, all eight products tested were irritating to rabbit eyes, and four of the products were "strongly" or "extremely" irritating.2

Skin Irritation: Glyphosate is classified as a slightly irritating to skin. Roundup is a "moderate skin irritant" and causes redness and swelling on both intact and abraded rabbit skin. Recovery can take more than two weeks.20

Acute Toxicity to Humans

The acute toxicity of glyphosate products to humans was first widely publicized by physicians in Japan who studied 56 cases of Roundup poisoning. Most of the cases were suicides or attempted suicides; nine cases were fatal. Symptoms of acute poisoning in humans included gastrointestinal pain, vomiting, excess fluid in the lungs, pneumonia, clouding of consciousness, and destruction of red blood cells.23 They calculated that the mean amount ingested in the fatal cases was slightly more than 200 milliliters (about 3/4 of a cup). They believed that POEA was the cause of Roundup’s toxicity.23 More recent reviews of glyphosate poisoning incidents have found similar symptoms, as well as lung congestion or dysfunction,24-26, erosion of the gastrointestinal tract,24,26 abnormal electrocardiograms,26 massive gastrointestinal fluid loss,27 low blood pressure,23,26 and kidney damage or failure.24,25,27

Smaller amounts of Roundup also cause adverse effects. In general these include the skin or eye irritation documented in animal studies, as well as some of the symptoms seen in humans following ingestion. For example, rubbing of Roundup in an eye caused swelling of the eye and lid, rapid heartbeat, palpitations, and elevated blood pressure. Wiping the face with a hand that had contacted leaky Roundup spray equipment caused a swollen face and tingling of the skin. Accidental drenching with Roundup (horticultural strength) caused recurrent eczema of the hands and feet lasting two months.25

Different symptoms have been observed when a different type of exposure has occurred. In Great Britain, a study compared the effects of breathing dust from a flax milling operation that used flax treated with Roundup with the effects of dust from untreated flax. Treated flax dust caused a decrease in lung function and an increase in throat irritation, coughing, and breathlessness.28

Subchronic Toxicity

Experiments in which glyphosate was fed to laboratory animals for 13 weeks showed a variety of effects. In experiments conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), microscopic salivary gland lesions were found in all doses tested in rats (200 – 3400 mg/kg per day) and in all but the lowest dose tested in mice (1,000-12,000 mg/kg per day). Both the parotid and submandibular salivary glands were affected in rats; in mice the lesions were confined to the parotid gland. Based on further experiments, NTP concluded the lesions were mediated by the adrenal hormone adrenalin.29

The NTP study also found evidence of effects on the liver: increases in bile acids as well as two liver enzymes were found in both males and females. Other effects found in this study were reduced weight gain in male and female rats and mice; diarrhea in male and female rats; and changes in the relative weights of kidney, liver and thymus in male rats and mice.29

Other subchronic laboratory tests found decreased weight gains (using doses of 2500 mg/kg per day)30 along with an increase in the weights of brain, hearts, kidney, and livers in mice.2 In rats, blood levels of potassium and phosphorus increased at all doses tested (60-1600 mg/kg/day) in both sexes. There was also an increase in pancreatic lesions in males.4

As in acute toxicity tests, glyphosate-containing products are more toxic than glyphosate alone in subchronic tests. In a 7 day study with calves, 790 mg/kg of Roundup caused labored breathing, pneumonia, and death of 1/3 of the animals tested. At lower doses decreased food intake and diarrhea were observed.2

Chronic Toxicity

Glyphosate is also toxic in long-term studies. The following effects were found in lifetime glyphosate feeding studies using mice: decreased body weight, excessive growth of particular liver cells, death of the same liver cells, and chronic inflammation of the kidney. Effects were significant only in males and at the highest dose tested (about 4800 mg/kg of body weight per day). In females, excessive growth of some kidney cells occurred.31 At a lower dose (814 mg/kg of body weight per day) excessive cell division in the urinary bladder occurred.2

Lifetime feeding studies with rats found the following effects: decreased body weight in females; an increased incidence of cataracts and lens degeneration in males; and increased liver weight in males. These effects were significant at the highest dose tested (900-1200 mg/kg of body weight per day).4 At a lower dose (400 mg/kg of body weight per day) inflammation of the stomach’s mucous membrane occurred in both sexes.2

Carcinogenicity

The potential of glyphosate to cause cancer has been a controversial subject since the first lifetime feeding studies were analyzed in the early 1980s. The first study (1979-1981) found an increase in testicular interstitial tumors in male rats at the highest dose tested (30 mg/kg of body weight per day).32 as well as an increase in the frequency of a thyroid cancer in females.33 The second study (completed in 1983) found dose-related increases in the frequency of a rare kidney tumor in male mice.34 The most recent study (1988-1990) found an increase in the number of pancreas and liver tumors in male rats together with an increase of the same thyroid cancer found in the 1983 study in females.35

All of these increases in tumor incidence are "not considered compound-related"35 according to EPA. In each case, different reasons are given for this conclusion. For the testicular tumors, EPA accepted the interpretation of an industry pathologist who said that the incidence in treated groups (12 percent) was similar to those observed in other control (not glyphosate-fed) rat feeding studies (4.5 percent).36 For the thyroid cancer, EPA stated that it was not possible to consistently distinguish between cancers and tumors of this type, so that the incidences of the two should be considered together. The combined data are not statistically significant.33 For the kidney tumors, the registrants reexamined slides of kidney tissue, finding an additional tumor in untreated mice so that statistical significance was lost. This was despite a memo from EPA’s pathologist stating that the lesion in question was not really a tumor.34 For the pancreatic tumors, EPA stated that there was no dose-related trend and no progression to malignancy. For the liver tumors and the thyroid tumors, EPA stated that pairwise comparisons between treated and untreated animals were not statistically significant and there was no progression to malignancy.35

EPA concluded that glyphosate should be classified as Group E, "evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans."35 They added that this classification "is based on the available evidence at the time of evaluation and should not be interpreted as a definitive conclusion that the agent will not be a carcinogen under any circumstances." 35 From a public health perspective, the results of the laboratory tests leave many questions unanswered. An EPA statistician wrote in a memo concerning one of the carcinogenicity studies, "Viewpoint is a key issue. Our viewpoint is one of protecting the public health when we see suspicious data."36 Unfortunately, EPA has not taken that conservative viewpoint in its assessment of glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential.

There are no studies available to NCAP evaluating the carcinogenicity of Roundup or other glyphosate-containing products. Without such tests, the carcinogenicity of glyphosate-containing products is unknown.

Mutagenicity

Laboratory studies of a variety of organisms have shown that glyphosate-containing products cause genetic damage:

* In fruit flies, Roundup and Pondmaster (an aquatic herbicide consisting of glyphosate and a trade secret surfactant)37 both increased the frequency of sex-linked, recessive lethal mutations. (These are mutations that are usually visible only in males because two damaged genes are required in order to be expressed in females.) In this study, the frequency of lethal mutations was between 3 and 6 times higher in fruit flies that had been exposed to glyphosate products during their larval development than in unexposed flies.38

* A laboratory study of human lymphocytes (one type of white blood cell) showed an increase in the frequency of sister chromatid exchanges following exposure to high doses of Roundup.39 (Sister chromatid exchanges are exchanges of genetic material during cell division between members of a chromosome pair. They result from point mutations.)

* In Salmonella bacteria, Roundup was weakly mutagenic at high concentrations. In onion root cells, Roundup caused an increase in chromosome aberrations.40

Glyphosate alone has rarely caused genetic damage in laboratory tests. None of the mutagenicity studies required for registration of glyphosate have shown it to be mutagenic. Tests included studies of mutations in hamster ovary cells, bacteria, and mouse bone marrow cells.4 Glyphosate was also not mutagenic in other studies of rats, mice,2 and onion cells40 but caused chromosome stickiness and fragmentation in water hyacinth root cells.41

Reproductive Effects

Laboratory studies have demonstrated a number of effects of glyphosate on reproduction, including effects on mothers, fathers, and offspring.

In rat feeding studiess, glyphosate reduced sperm counts (at the two highest doses tested) and lengthened the estrous cycle, how often a female comes into heat (at the highest dose tested).29 Other effects on mother rats in laboratory tests include soft stools, diarrhea, breathing rattles, red nasal discharge, reduced activity, growth retardation, decreased body weights, and increased mortality.2 Effects on offspring included an increase in fetal loss, a decrease in the number of embryos successfully implanted into the uterus, a decrease in the number of viable fetuses, a slight decrease in litter size, a decrease in fetal and pup weights, and an increase in problems with breast bone formation.2 Effects were observed at the highest doses tested (1500 and 3500 mg/kg of body weight per day).2

In a study of rabbits using doses that were lower than those used in the rat studies above, glyphosate caused diarrhea, nasal discharge, and death in mothers.2 The only effect on offspring was a decrease in fetal weight in all treated groups.42

A study in which glyphosate was fed to rats for three generations after which the offspring were examined for birth defects found kidney damage at a relatively low dose (30 mg/kg of body weight). However, a second study (only two generations long) did not find similar effects, and EPA called the damage in the first study "spurious."4 From a public health perspective, however, a new three generation study is crucial.

Toxicology of Glyphosate’s Major Metabolite

In general, studies of the breakdown of glyphosate find only one metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA).2 (See Figure 5.) Although AMPA has low acute toxicity (its LD50 is 8,300 mg/kg of body weight in rats)20 and is only slightly irritating to eyes,43 it causes a variety of toxicological problems. In subchronic tests on rats, AMPA caused decreased weight gain in males; an increase in the acidity of urine in both males and females; an increase in the activity of an enzyme, lactic dehydrogenase, in both sexes; a decrease in liver weights in males at all doses tested; and excessive cell division in the lining of the urinary bladder and in part of the kidney in both sexes.20 AMPA is much more persistent than glyphosate; studies in eight states found that the half-life in soil (the time required for half of the original concentration of a compound to break down or dissipate) were between 119 and 958 days.2

Quality of Toxicology Testing

Tests done on glyphosate to meet registration requirements have been associated with fraudulent practices.

Laboratory fraud first made headlines in 1983 when EPA publicly announced that a 1976 audit had discovered "serious deficiencies and improprieties" in toxicology studies conducted by Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT).44 Problems included "countless deaths of rats and mice that were not reported," "fabricated data tables," and "routine falsification of data."44

IBT was one of the largest laboratories performing tests in support of pesticide registrations.44 About 30 tests on glyphosate and glyphosate-containing products were performed by IBT, including 11 of the 19 chronic toxicology studies.45 A compelling example of the poor quality of IBT data comes from an EPA toxicologist who wrote, "It is also somewhat difficult not to doubt the scientific integrity of a study when the IBT stated that it took specimens from the uteri (of male rabbits) for histopathological examination."46 (Emphasis added.)

In 1991, laboratory fraud returned to the headlines when EPA alleged that Craven Laboratories, a company that performed contract studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto, had falsified test results.47 "Tricks" employed by Craven Labs included "falsifying laboratory notebook entries" and "manually manipulating scientific equipment to produce false reports."48 Roundup residue studies on plums, potatoes, grapes, and sugarbeets were among the tests in question.49

The following year, the owner/president of Craven Laboratories and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts. A number of other employees agreed to plead guilty on a number of related charges.50 The owner was sentenced to five years in prison and fined $50,000; Craven Labs was fined 15.5 million dollars, and ordered to pay 3.7 million dollars in restitution.48

Although the tests of glyphosate identified as fraudulent have been replaced, these practices cast shadows on the entire pesticide registration process.

References

1. Monsanto, the Agricultural Group. Undated. Roundup into the twenty-first century. St. Louis, MO.

2. World Health Organization, United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organization. 1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria #159. Geneva, Switzerland.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Pesticide fact sheet: Glyphosate. No. 173. Washington, D.C.: Office of Pesticide Programs. (June.)

4. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticide Programs. Special Review and Reregistration Division. 1993. Reregistration eligibility decision (RED): Glyphosate. Washington, D.C. (September.)

5. Monsanto Company Agricultural Products. 1992. Accord label. St. Louis, MO. (December 1.)

6. Carlisle, S.M. and J.T. Trevors. 1988. Glyphosate in the environment. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 39:409-420.

7. Aspelin, A.L. 1994. Pesticide industry sales and usage: 1992 and 1993 market estimates. U.S. EPA. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Office of Pesticide Programs. Biological and Economic Analysis Division. Washington, D.C. (June.)

8. Whitmore, R.W., J.E. Kelly, and P.L. Reading. 1992. National home and garden pesticide use survey. Final report, Vol. 1: Executive summary, results, and recommendations. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.

9 California Environmental Protection Agency. Dept. of Pesticide Regulation. Information Services Branch. 1994. Pesticide use report: Annual 1992. Indexed by chemical. Sacramento, CA. (February.)

10. Cremlyn, R.J. 1991. Agrochemicals: Preparation and mode of action. Chichester, U.K: John Wiley & Sons. Pp.257-258.

11. Gilchrist, D.G. and T. Kosuge. 1980. Aromatic amino acid biosynthesis and its regulation. In Miflin, B.J. (ed.) The biochemistry of plants. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 507-513

12. Metzler, D.E. 1977. Biochemistry: The chemical reactions of living cells. Pp. 849-850. New York, NY: Academic Press.

13. Su, L.Y. et al. 1992. The relationship of glyphosate treatment to sugar metabolism in sugarcane: New physiological insights. J. Plant Physiol. 140:168-173.

14. Hietanen, E., K. Linnainmaa, and H. Vainio. 1983. Effects of phenoxy herbicides and glyphosate on the hepatic and intestinal biotransformation activities in the rat. Acta Pharma. et Toxicol. 53:103-112.

15. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. 1994. Glyphosate herbicide information profile. (October.)

16. Olorunsogo, O.O., E.A. Bababunmi, and O. Bassir. 1977 Proc. 1st Intern. Cong. of Toxicol. (Toronto, Canada). Cited in Olorunsogo, O.O., E.A. Bababunmi, and O. Bassir. 1979. Effect of glyphosate on rat liver mitochondria in vivo. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 22:357-364.

17. Olorunsogo, O.O. 1976. Ph.D. thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Cited in Olorunsogo, O.O., E.A. Bababunmi, and O. Bassir. 1979. Effect of glyphosate on rat liver mitochondria in vivo. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 22:357-364.

18. Martinez, T.T., W.C. Long, and R. Hiller. 1990. Comparison of the toxicology of the herbicide Roundup by oral and pulmonary routes of exposure. Proc. West. Pharmacol. Soc. 33:193-197.

19. Martinez, T.T. and K. Brown. 1991. Oral and pulmonary toxicology of the surfactant used in Roundup herbicide. Proc. West. Pharmacol. Soc. 34:43-46.

20. Agriculture Canada. Food Production and Inspection Branch. Pesticides Directorate. 1991. Discussion document: Pre-harvest use of glyphosate. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. (November 27.)

21. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1982. Memo from William Dykstra, Toxicology Branch, to Robert Taylor, Registration Division. (April 29.)

22. Tai, T. 1990. Hemodynamic effects of Roundup, glyphosate and surfactant in dogs. Jpn. J. Toxicol. 3(1): 63-68. Cited in World Health Organization, United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organization. 1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria #159. Geneva, Switzerland.

23. Sawada, Y., Y. Nagai, M. Ueyama, and I. Yamamoto. 1988. Probable toxicity of surface-active agent in commercial herbicide containing glyphosate. Lancet 1(8580):299.

24. Tominack, R.L. et al. 1991. Taiwan National Poison Center: Survey of glyphosate-surfactant herbicide ingestions. Clin. Toxicol. 29(1):91-109.

25. Temple, W.A. and N.A. Smith. 1992. Glyphosate herbicide poisoning experience in New Zealand. N.Z. Med. J. 105:173- 174.

26. Talbot, A.R. et al. 1991. Acute poisoning with a glyphosate-surfactant herbicide (‘Roundup’): A review of 93 cases. Human Exp. Toxicol. 10:1-8.

27. Menkes, D.B., W.A. Temple, and I.R. Edwards. 1991. Intentional self-poisoning with glyphosate-containing herbicides. Human Exp. Toxicol. 10:103-107.

28. Jamison, J.P., J.H.M. Langlands, R.C. Lowry. 1986. Ventilatory impairment from pre-harvest retted flax. Brit. J. Ind. Med. 43:809-813.

29. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. National Institutes of Health. NTP technical report on toxicity studies of glyphosate (CAS No. 1071-83-6) administered in dosed feed to F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. (NIH Publication 92-3135). Toxicity Reports Series No. 16. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program.

30. U.S. EPA. Office of Toxic Substances. 1980. EPA Reg. #524-308; glyphosate; 3-month mouse feeding study. Memo from William Dykstra, Health Effects Division, to Robert Taylor, Registration Division. Washington, D.C. (September 29.)

31. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1985. Glyphosate; EPA Reg.#524-308; Mouse oncogenicity study. Washington, D.C. (April 3.)

32. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1982. EPA Reg. #524-308; Lifetime feeding study in rats with glyphosate. Memo from William Dykstra, Health Effects Division to Robert Taylor, Registration Division. Washington, D.C. (February 18.)

33. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1983. Glyphosate; EPA Reg. #524-308; A lifetime feeding study of glyphosate in Sprague-Dawley rats; a preliminary addendum to review dated 2/18/83. Memo to Robert Taylor, Registration Division. Washington, D.C. (February 15.)

34. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1985. Glyphosate Q Evaluation of kidney tumors in male mice. Chronic feeding study. Memo from L. Kasza, Toxicology Branch, to W. Dykstra, Toxicology Branch. Washington, D.C. (December 4.)

35. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1991. Second peer review of glyphosate. Memo from W. Dykstra and G.Z. Ghali, Health Effects Division to R. Taylor, Registration Division, and Lois Rossi, Special Review and Reregistration Division. Washington, D.C. (October 30.)

36. U.S. EPA Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1985. Use of historical data in determining the weight of evidence from kidney tumor incidence in the glyphosate two-year feeding study; and some remarks on false positives. Memo from Herbert Lacayo to Reto Engler (both Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division). Washington, D.C. (February 26.)

37. Monsanto Co. 1988. Material safety data sheet: Pondmaster aquatic herbicide. St. Louis, MO. (April.)

38. Kale, P.G. et al. 1995. Mutagenicity testing of nine herbicides and pesticides currently used in agriculture. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 25:148-153.

39. Vigfusson, N.V. and E.R. Vyse. 1980. The effect of the pesticides, Dexon, Capton and Roundup on sister-chromatid exchanges in human lymphocytes in vitro. Mutation Research 79:53-57.

40. Rank, J. et al. 1993. Genotoxicity testing of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate isopropylamine using the mouse bone marrow micronucleus test, Salmonella mutagenicity test, and Allium anaphase-telophase test. Mut. Res. 300:29-36.

41. Goltenboth, F. 1977. The effect of glyphosate and ametryn on the root tip mitosis of water hyacinth. Proc. Asian Pac. Weed Sci. 6th Conf. 2:255. Cited in Hess, F.D. 1989. Herbicide interference with cell division in plants. Chapter 5 of Bgez, P and Sandmann, G. (eds.) Target sites of herbicide action. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc.

42. U.S. EPA. Office of Toxic Substances. 1980. EPA Reg. #524-308; glyphosate; submission of rat teratology, rabbit teratology, dominant lethal mutagenicity assay in mice. Memo from W. Dykstra, Health Effects Division, to Robert Taylor, Registration Division. Washington, D.C. (Undated.)

43. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1986. Guidance for the reregistration of pesticide products containing glyphosate as the active ingredient. Washington, D.C. (June.)

44. U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Government Operations. 1984. Problems plague the Environmental Protection Agency’s pesticide registration activities. House Report 98-1147. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

45. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1983. Summary of the IBT review program. Washington, D.C. (July.)

46. U.S. EPA. 1978. Data validation. Memo from K. Locke, Toxicology Branch, to R. Taylor, Registration Branch. Washington, D.C. (August 9.)

47. U.S. EPA. Communications and Public Affairs. 1991. Note to correspondents. Washington, D.C. (March 1.)

48. U.S. EPA. Communications, Education, And Public Affairs. 1994. Press advisory. Craven Laboratories, owner, and 14 employees sentenced for falsifying pesticide tests. Washington, D.C. (March 4.)

49. U.S. EPA. Communications and Public Affairs. 1991. Press advisory. EPA lists crops associated with pesticides for which residue and environmental fate studies were allegedly manipulated. Washington, D.C. (March 29.)

50. U.S. Dept. of Justice. United States Attorney. Western District of Texas. 1992. Texas laboratory, its president, 3 employees indicted on 20 felony counts in connection with pesticide testing. Austin, TX. (September 29.)

========================================================

| Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides |

| P.O. Box 1393 Eugene, OR 97440 |

| Phone: (541) 344-5044 |

| email: ncap@igc.apc.org |

========================================================

** Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) **

Phone: (415) 541-9140

Fax: (415) 541-9253

*For general information about PANNA, send an email: panna@panna.org

http://www.panna.org/panna/

========================================================

Glyphosate Weedkiller in Our Food and Water?

Colin Todhunter
Infowars.com
June 17, 2013

Historians may look back and write about how willing we are to sacrifice our children and jeopardize future generations with a massive experiment that is based on false promises and flawed science just to benefit the bottom line of a commercial enterprise.” So said Don Huber in referring to the use of glyphosate and genetically modified crops. Huber was speaking at Organic Connections conference in Regina, Canada, late 2012.

Huber is an emeritus professor in plant pathology at Purdue University in the US and has worked with the Department of Homeland Security to reduce the impact of plant disease outbreaks. His words are well worth bearing in mind given that a new study commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe (FoE) and GM Freeze has found that people in 18 countries across Europe have been found to have traces of glyphosate in their urine (1).

Friends of the Earth Europe commissioned laboratory tests on urine samples from volunteers in 18 countries across Europe and found that on average 44 percent of samples contained glyphosate. The proportion of positive samples varied between countries, with Malta, Germany, the UK and Poland having the most positive tests, and lower levels detected in Macedonia and Switzerland. All the volunteers who provided samples live in cities, and none had handled or used glyphosate products in the run-up to the tests.

The Influence of the Biotech Sector on Safety and Regulation

Although ‘weedkiller in urine’ sounds alarming, Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London, says the levels found are unlikely to be of any significance to health because they are 300 times lower than the level which might cause concern. Alison Haughton, head of the Pollination Ecology Group at Rothamsted Research, said that if FoE and GM Freeze want their work to have scientific credibility and provide a genuine contribution to the debate on pesticide residues, they should submit their work for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Valid points, you might think. But FoE believes that there is sufficient evidence to suggest environmental and health impacts from glyphosate warrant concern. It wants to know how the glyphosate found in human urine samples has entered the body, what the impacts of persistent exposure to low levels of glyphosate might be and what happens to the glyphosate that remains in the body. New research published in the journal Entropy sheds disturbing light on such concerns (discussed later in this article).

In 2011, Earth Open Source said that official approval of glyphosate had been rash, problematic and deeply flawed. A comprehensive review of existing data released in June 2011 by Earth Open Source suggested that industry regulators in Europe had known for years that glyphosate causes birth defects in the embryos of laboratory animals. Questions were raised about the role of the powerful agro-industry in rigging data pertaining to product safety and its undue influence on regulatory bodies (2).

In the same vein, FoE says there is currently very little testing for glyphosate by public authorities, despite its widespread use, and authorities in Europe do not test for glyphosate in humans and tests on food are infrequent. Glyphosate was approved for EU-wide use in 2002, but FoE argues that the European regulatory agencies did not carry out their own safety testing, relying instead on data provided by the manufacturers.

Of course there are certain scientists (usually with links to the agro-industry) who always seem to be strident in calling for peer-reviewed evidence when people are critical of the biotech sector, but then rubbish it and smear or intimidate the scientists involved when that occurs, as has been the case with Dr Arsad Pusztai in the UK or Professor Seralini in France. It is therefore quite revealing that most of the data pertaining to glyphosate safety came from industry studies, not from peer-reviewed science, and the original data are not available for independent scrutiny.

Increasing Use

With references to a raft of peer-reviewed studies, FoE also brings attention to the often disturbing health and environmental dangers and impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides throughout the world (1). The FoE study also highlights concerns around the increasing levels of exposure to glyphosate-based weed killers, particularly as the use of glyphosate is predicted to rise further if more genetically modified (GM) crops are grown. It is after all good for business. And the biggest producer of glyphosate is Monsanto, which sells it under the brand name ‘Roundup’.

“The figures don’t lie; GMOs drive glyphosate sales.” (3)

Despite its widespread use, there is currently little monitoring of glyphosate in food, water or the wider environment. The FoE commissioned study is the first time monitoring has been carried out across Europe for the presence of the weed killer in human bodies. FoE Europe’s spokesperson Adrian Bebb argues that there is a serious lack of action by public authorities and indicates that this weed killer is being widely overused.

This certainly needs to be addressed not least because the prediction concerning increasing exposure to glyphosate is not without substance. The introduction of Roundup Ready crops has already resulted in an increase of glyphosate use. Using official US government data, Dr Charles Benbrook, research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University, states that since 1996 the glysophate rate of application per crop year has tripled on cotton farms, doubled in the case of soybeans and risen 39 percent on corn (4). The average annual increase in the pounds of glyphosate applied to cotton, soybeans, and corn has been 18.2 percent, 9.8 percent, and 4.3 percent, respectively, since herbicide tolerant crops were introduced.

Glyphosate is used on many genetically modified crops. 14 new GM crops designed to be cultivated with glyphosate are currently waiting for approval to be grown in Europe. Approval of these crops would inevitably lead to a further increase of glysphosate spraying. In the US, biotech crops, including corn, soybeans, canola and sugarbeets, are planted on millions of acres annually.

Increasing Dangers

Evidence suggests that Roundup could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility and cancers, according to a new peer-reviewed report, published recently in the scientific journal Entropy (5). The study also concluded that residues of glyphosate have been found in food.

These residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a science consultant. The study says that negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.

In 2010, the provincial government of Chaco province in Argentina issued a report on health statistics from the town La Leonesa. The report showed that from 2000 to 2009, following the expansion of genetically-modified soy and rice crops in the region (and the use of glyphosate), the childhood cancer rate tripled in La Leonesa and the rate of birth defects increased nearly fourfold over the entire province (6).

Professor Huber also notes the health risks associated with the (increasing) use of glyphosate. He says a number of plant pathogens are emerging, which when consumed could impact human health. Based on research that he alludes to (he refuses to make his research public or identify his fellow researchers, who he claims could suffer substantial professional backlash from academic employers who received research funding from the biotechnology industry), Huber notes that the use of glyphosate changes the soil ecology, killing many bacteria, while giving other bacteria a competitive advantage. This makes plants highly susceptible to soil borne diseases. At the same time, glyphosate has a negative effect on a number of beneficial soil organisms (7).

Huber’s concerns about the impact of long term use of glyphosate on soil sterility are similar to concerns expressed by Elaine Ingham, a soil ecologist with the Rodale Institute, and also research carried out in by Navdanya in India (8).

As for GM crops, Huber says they have lower water use efficiency, tend to be nutrient deficient, have increased bud and fruit abortion and are predisposed to infectious diseases and insect damage. He suggests that Roundup Ready crops, treated with glyphosate, have higher levels of mycotoxins and lower nutrient levels than conventional crops.

“… you could say that what you’re doing with glyphosate is you’re giving the plant a bad case of AIDS. You’ve shut down the immune system or the defense system.” Professor Ron Huber (7)

He concludes that, when consumed, the GM crops were more likely to cause disease, infertility, birth defects, cancer and allergic reactions than conventional crops.

Huber claims that consumption of food or feed that was genetically modified could bring the altered genes in contact with the microbes in the guts of the livestock or people who eat them. He feels this increases diseases, such as celiac disease, allergies, asthma, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes, gluten intolerance, irritable bowel disease, miscarriage, obesity and sudden infant death syndrome.

While none of these findings conclusively prove that plant (or animal) diseases are caused by the glyphosate, Huber feels safety evaluations have been inadequate, suggesting that previous (GM sector) research was substandard and extremely misleading in its interpretation of results – or worse.

With some hugely powerful players involved here, many of whom have successfully infiltrated important government and official bodies (9), much of the science and the ensuing debate surrounding glyphosate is being manipulated and hijacked by vested interests for commercial gain.

“… publishing in this area can also be difficult. I know from the International Symposium on Glyphosate that they had to find a journal publisher outside this country (the US) to publish the research data and symposium proceedings. It’s pretty hard to get it published in the States. There are also some hazards to publishing if you’re a young researcher doing research that runs counter to the current popular concepts. A lot of research on safety of genetic engineering is done outside of this country because it’s difficult to gain access to the materials, or the statements you have to sign to have access to those materials stating that you won’t publish without permission of the supplier. I think the 26 entomologists who sent their letter to EPA in 2009 stated it aptly when they said that objective data wasn’t available to the EPA because the materials haven’t been available to them or that they’re denied the opportunity to publish their data.” Professor Ron Huber (7)

Notes

1) http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/foee_media_briefing_glyphosate.pdf
2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/roundup-scientists-birth-defects_n_883578.html
3) http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetic-engineering-and-corporate-agribusiness-gmos-and-the-impacts-of-glyphosate-herbicide/5337096
4) http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf
5) http://www.nationofchange.org/study-links-monsanto-s-roundup-autism-parkinson-s-and-alzheimer-s-1367764115
6) http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-147561-2010-06-14.html
7) http://farmandranchfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/don-huber-may2011-acres.pdf
8) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BtCottonKillsSoilandFarmers.php
9) http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm

This original originally appeared at GlobalResearch.

Thousands Of Companies Have Been Handing Over Your Personal Data To The NSA

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
June 15, 2013

It isn’t just Internet and phone companies that are giving your personal information to the U.S. government.  According to an astounding reportby Bloomberg, “four people familiar with the process” say that “makers of hardware and software, banks, Internet security providers, satellite telecommunications companies” and a whole host of other sources are handing over your personal data to federal agencies.  The truth is that there is so much more to this NSA snooping scandal than the American people know so far.  When U.S. Representative Loretta Sanchez said that what Edward Snowden had revealed was “just the tip of the iceberg“, she wasn’t kidding.  The U.S. government is trying to collect as much information about everyone on the planet as it possibly can.  And this incredibly powerful intelligence machine is not going to go away just because a few activists get upset about it.  The United States government spendsmore than 80 billion dollars a year on intelligence programs.  Those that have spent their careersconstructing this monolithic intelligence apparatus are doing to defend it to the bitter end, as will the corporate partners in the private sector that rake in enormous profits thanks to big fat government contracts.  But if the American people don’t stand up and demand change now, it is going to be a signal to those doing the snooping that they can push the envelope even more because nobody is going to stop them.

So why are thousands of companies handing over your personal data to the NSA?  Well, according to Bloomberg they are getting things in return…

Thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said.

These programs, whose participants are known as trusted partners, extend far beyond what was revealed by Edward Snowden, a computer technician who did work for the National Security Agency. The role of private companies has come under intense scrutiny since his disclosure this month that the NSA is collecting millions of U.S. residents’ telephone records and the computer communications of foreigners from Google Inc (GOOG). and other Internet companies under court order.

Thanks to the recent revelations by Edward Snowden, much of the focus so far has been on the information that the NSA gets from Internet and telecommunications companies, but apparently government agencies collect information about all of us from a vast array of sources…

Makers of hardware and software, banks, Internet security providers, satellite telecommunications companies and many other companies also participate in the government programs. In some cases, the information gathered may be used not just to defend the nation but to help infiltrate computersof its adversaries.

Along with the NSA, the Central Intelligence Agency (0112917D), the Federal Bureau of Investigation and branches of the U.S. military have agreements with such companies to gather data that might seem innocuous but could be highly useful in the hands of U.S. intelligence or cyber warfare units, according to the people, who have either worked for the government or are in companies that have these accords.

We have become a “surveillance society”, and this is exactly the sort of thing that the Fourth Amendment was supposed to protect us against.  The government is only supposed to invade our privacy and investigate us when there is probable cause to do so.

But now the government is trying to collect as much information about all of us as it possibly can even though the vast majority of us will never be charged with any crime.

There seems to be no limit when it comes to how much personal data the government wants to gather on all of us.  As I have written about previously, the chief technology officer at the CIA says that they “fundamentally try to collect everything and hang onto it forever.”

And this does not just apply to American citizens.  The U.S. government is compiling data on everyone on the planet.  And since such a high percentage of Internet traffic flows through U.S. networks and U.S. companies, that gives the U.S. intelligence community a tremendous “home-field advantage”.  The following is from a recent piece authored by Ronald Deibert, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto…

While cyberspace may be global, its infrastructure most definitely is not.

For example, a huge proportion of global Internet traffic flows through networks controlled by the United States, simply because eight of 15 global tier 1 telecommunications companies are American — companies like AT&T, CenturyLink, XO Communications and, significantly, Verizon.

The social media services that many of us take for granted are also mostly provided by giants headquartered in the United States, like Google, Facebook, Yahoo! and Twitter. All of these companies are subject to U.S. law, including the provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act, no matter where their services are offered or their servers located. Having the world’s Internet traffic routed through the U.S. and having those companies under its jurisdiction give U.S. national security agencies an enormous home-field advantage that few other countries enjoy.

But what is really the point of all of this intelligence gathering?

Is it to make us a little bit safer?

If so, we are making a massive mistake.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote the following: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Are you willing to give up your Fourth Amendment rights in order to feel a little more safe?

I hope not.

The U.S. Constitution never guaranteed us safety.  But it is supposed to guarantee our privacy.

Fortunately, it appears that at this point public opinion is very much against all of the snooping that the government has been doing.  According to the Guardian, most of the recent surveys that have been done are coming up with very consistent results…

Thursday, the Guardian released a poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday nights by Public Policy Polling looking at America’s reaction to the National Security Agency (NSA) controversy. The public appears to be reacting negatively to the revelations – and it seems to be hurting President Obama.

We found 50% of American voters believe the NSA should not be collecting telephone or internet records, compared to the 44% who think they should. The results hold even when respondents were told that the data the government is collecting is “metadata” (and not necessarily actual content of communications).

These results are consistent with a CBS News poll,Fox News poll, and YouGov survey that showed only 38%, 32%, and 35% of Americans respectively approved of phone record collection in order to reduce the chance of a terrorist attack. A Gallup poll was consistent with these, showing only 37% approved monitoring of Americans’ phone and internet use.

And Americans also seem to be very suspicious about what the government will do with our personal data once they have it.

In fact, according to a new Rasmussen survey, 57 percent of Americans believe that the government will use the information that it collects “to harass political opponents”.

And of course many of the recent scandals that have erupted this year involve the government harassing political opponents.  We have seen this with the IRS scandal, and we have seen this with the spying on reporters scandal.

Just this week it was reported that CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson has had her computers hacked repeatedly.  If you are not familiar with Attkisson, she is the one reporter in the mainstream media that has been relentless when it has come to pursuing the Operation Fast and Furious and Benghazi stories.  Now we are learning that a “sophisticated” intruder hacked into her computer “on multiple occasions” in late 2012…

CBS News announced Friday that correspondent Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was hacked by “an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions,” confirming Attkisson’s previous revelation of the hacking.

CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair said that a cybersecurity firm hired by CBS News “has determined through forensic analysis” that “Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions in late 2012.”

“Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data. This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion. CBS News is taking steps to identify the responsible party and their method of access.”

Meanwhile, in a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from all of these scandals, Barack Obama is starting a war with Syria.

In this war, we are actually going to be helping al-Qaeda rebels that arebeheading Christians to take over Syria.

If you aren’t aware of the deep connection between al-Qaeda and the Syrian rebels, just read the recent USA Today article entitled “Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda” or any of the dozens of other articles that you can find on the Internet that document this very clearly.

And the sick thing is that a large number of Republicans are actually applauding Barack Obama for teaming up with al-Qaeda.

Has it suddenly become “conservative” to help al-Qaeda?

What in the world is going on?

And you know what?

The truth was that our troops were in position long before Barack Obama made his “stunning announcement” on Thursday.  In fact, it hasbeen confirmed that U.S. troops are already in Jordan along the Syrian border.

And could this conflict with Syria actually set the stage for a much larger conflict?

The Russians have been providing “mortars, light artillery, antiaircraft guns, antitank weapons and ammunition” to the Syrian government and they have loudly denounced the latest moves by the Obama administration.

Yes, the Assad government is horrible, but what Obama is doing in Syria is a terrible, terrible mistake.

If the U.S. takes down the Assad government, forces loyal to al-Qaeda and other radical jihadists are going to take over and we will have made Russia and China very angry.  If the U.S. is unsuccessful in removing the Assad government, it will be considered a crushing defeat for the United States.

Either way, we lose.

 

Democrats and Republicans Agree: America’s Stasi Surveillance State is a Good Thing

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 15, 2013

On Friday Rasmussen Reports released a poll finding that nearly 60 percent of Americans think the government will use data illegally collected by the NSA to go after political opponents. It also found that there “is little public support for the sweeping and unaccountable nature of the National Security Agency surveillance program along with concerns about how the data will be used.”

If we accept the validity of this latest poll – or any establishment poll – it would be fair to say most Americans understand that surveillance is not used to protect us from foreign enemies in the fake war on terrorism.

Earlier in the week this is exactly what Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, and the Republican senator from Georgia Saxby Chambliss, told us. Rogers said that converting the United States into a high-tech version of Stasi Germany has resulted in “changes we can already see being made by the folks who wish to do us harm, and our allies harm.” Rogers added that recent revelations by Booz Allen Hamilton analyst Edward Snowden “make it harder to track bad guys trying to harm U.S. citizens in the United States.”

The American people might be opposed to the NSA surveillance program, but there is overwhelming consensus in favor of it in Washington. The Democrat intelligentsia in the Mockingbird media, especially the Obama partisans, have lined up in favor of trampling on the rights of American citizens.

“I’ve been amazed and disappointed for a long time at how the most slavishly partisan media Democrats who pretended to care so much about these issues when doing so helped undermine George Bush are now the loudest apologists and cheerleaders for these very same policies,” Glenn Greenwald, who broke the NSA story, said on Tuesday. “If they started a club called Liberal Pundits to Defend the National Security State, no auditorium in the country would be large enough to accommodate them.”

This was underscored on Monday when another poll showed that Democrats love the Stasi state. Support for tyranny depends on what side of the establishment party is in the White House. “With President Obama in the White House, Democrats stand in support of the NSA’s methods, 49% to 40% in the Gallupsurvey. Republicans were opposed 63% to 32%. When President George W. Bush was in office, Republicans were supportive of government surveillance efforts and Democrats opposed,” the Los Angeles Times reports.

This is not surprising, writes Justin Raimondo. “Now it is the liberals’ turn to justify the demolition of the Constitution, and especially to give the final push to take down that once-mighty and now greatly eroded bulwark against tyranny, the Bill of Rights. Anyone who is surprised by the alacrity with which they have taken up this task is unfamiliar with the history of American liberalism and the left in general.”

This takes us back to the Rasmussen Reports poll cited above. Most Americans know the surveillance state is used against political enemies, not phantasmal terrorists in caves. They understand that whatever side of the party is in power, it will use surveillance and dirty tricks to undermine the competition. In regard to enemies beyond the walls and out in the political hinterland, it will use the surveillance apparatus like a cudgel to destroy them. History is replete with examples of this from the FBI’s COINTELPRO and the CIA’s Operation CHAOS back to the dawning days of the nation when Federalist John Adams attempted to sabotage the Bill of Rights by signing the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 into law. (See Timeline of US Govt. Surveillance and Spying for more information on how the surveillance state has been used to harass and persecute political opponents.)

Rush Limbaugh may say the real danger is Obama, but that is a diversion. In early 2006, Limbaugh characterized illegal surveillance under Bush as “intercepts of the enemy” and said opponents were supporting an “al-Qaeda bill of rights.” Democrats and Republicans will continue to play political football in a larger game shaped by the establishment’s false left-right paradigm. Both support what the NSA is doing and the Stasi state will grow and flourish so long as Democrats and Republicans share power.

We are now very close to witnessing the final extinction of the Bill of Rights. This has been the goal of one-world totalitarians for some time. Over the last few years, we have documented the effort by the globalist intelligentsia – led by globalist operative Fareed Zakaria – to destroy the Constitution.

The NSA spy grid is designed to monitor and undermine the political activity of those of us who want to preserve the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaeda, a largely imaginary terrorist group that only surfaces in the United States due to a concerted patsy and public propaganda program led by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

 

The Next NSA Spying Shoe to Drop: “Pre-Crime” Artificial Intelligence

Washington’s Blog
June 17, 2013

NSA spying whistleblower Edward Snowden’s statements have been verified.    Reporter Glenn Greenwald has promised numerous additional disclosures from Snowden.

What other revelations are coming?

We reported in 2008:

A new article by investigative reporter Christopher Ketcham reveals, a governmental unit operating in secret and with no oversight whatsoever is gathering massive amounts of data on every American and running artificial intelligence software to predict each American’s behavior, including “what the target will do, where the target will go, who it will turn to for help”.

The same governmental unit is responsible for suspending the Constitution and implementing martial law in the event that anything is deemed by the White House in its sole discretion to constitute a threat to the United States. (this is formally known as implementing “Continuity of Government” plans). [Background here.]

As Ketcham’s article makes clear, these same folks and their predecessors have been been busy dreaming up plans to imprison countless “trouble-making” Americans without trial in case of any real or imagined emergency.  What kind of Americans? Ketcham describes it this way:

“Dissidents and activists of various stripes, political and tax protestors, lawyers and professors, publishers and journalists, gun owners, illegal aliens, foreign nationals, and a great many other harmless, average people.”

Do we want the same small group of folks who have the power to suspend the Constitution, implement martial law, and imprison normal citizens to also be gathering information on all Americans and running AI programs to be able to predict where American citizens will go for help and what they will do in case of an emergency? Don’t we want the government to — um, I don’t know — help us in case of an emergency?

Bear in mind that the Pentagon is also running an AI program to see how people will react to propaganda and to government-inflicted terror. The program is called Sentient World Simulation:

“U.S defense, intel and homeland security officials are constructing a parallel world, on a computer, which the agencies will use to test propaganda messages and military strategies.Called the Sentient World Simulation, the program uses AI routines based upon the psychological theories of Marty Seligman, among others. (Seligman introduced the theory of ‘learned helplessness’ in the 1960s, after shocking beagles until they cowered, urinating, on the bottom of their cages.)

Yank a country’s water supply. Stage a military coup. SWS will tell you what happens next.

The sim will feature an AR avatar for each person in the real world, based upon data collected about us from government records and the internet.”

The continuity of government folks’ AI program and the Pentagon’s AI program may or may not be linked, but they both indicate massive spying and artificial intelligence in order to manipulate the American public, to concentrate power, to take away the liberties and freedoms of average Americans, and — worst of all — to induce chaos in order to achieve these ends.

PBS Nova reported in 2009:

The National Security Agency (NSA) is developing a tool that George Orwell’s Thought Police might have found useful: an artificial intelligence system designed to gain insight into what people are thinking.

With the entire Internet and thousands of databases for a brain, the device will be able to respond almost instantaneously to complex questions posed by intelligence analysts. As more and more data is collected—through phone calls, credit card receipts, social networks like Facebook and MySpace, GPS tracks, cell phone geolocation, Internet searches, Amazon book purchases, even E-Z Pass toll records—it may one day be possible to know not just where people are and what they are doing, but what and how they think.

The system is so potentially intrusive that at least one researcher has quit, citing concerns over the dangers in placing such a powerful weapon in the hands of a top-secret agency with little accountability.

Known as Aquaint, which stands for “Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence” [which is run by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA)], part of the new M Square Research Park in College Park, Maryland. A mammoth two million-square-foot, 128-acre complex, it is operated in collaboration with the University of Maryland. “Their budget is classified, but I understand it’s very well funded,” said Brian Darmody, the University of Maryland’s assistant vice president of research and economic development, referring to IARPA. “They’ll be in their own building here, and they’re going to grow. Their mission is expanding.”

***

In a 2004 pilot project, a mass of data was gathered from news stories taken from theNew York Times, the AP news wire, and the English portion of the Chinese Xinhua news wire covering 1998 to 2000. Then, 13 U.S. military intelligence analysts searched the data and came up with a number of scenarios based on the material. Finally, using those scenarios, an NSA analyst developed 50 topics, and in each of those topics created a series of questions for Aquaint’s computerized brain to answer. “Will the Japanese use force to defend the Senkakus?” was one. “What types of disputes or conflict between the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] and Hong Kong residents have been reported?” was another. And “Who were the participants in this spy ring, and how are they related to each other?” was a third. Since then, the NSA has attempted to build both on the complexity of the system—more essay-like answers rather than yes or no—and on attacking greater volumes of data.

“The technology behaves like a robot, understanding and answering complex questions,” said a former Aquaint researcher. “Think of 2001: A Space Odyssey and the most memorable character, HAL 9000, having a conversation with David. We are essentially building this system. We are building HAL.” A naturalized U.S. citizen who received her Ph.D. from Columbia, the researcher worked on the program for several years but eventually left due to moral concerns. “The system can answer the question, ‘What does X think about Y?’” she said. “Working for the government is great, but I don’t like looking into other people’s secrets.

A supersmart search engine, capable of answering complex questions such as “What were the major issues in the last 10 presidential elections?” would be very useful for the public. But that same capability in the hands of an agency like the NSA—absolutely secret, often above the law, resistant to oversight, and with access to petabytes of private information about Americans—could be a privacy and civil liberties nightmare. “We must not forget that the ultimate goal is to transfer research results into operational use,” said Aquaint project leader John Prange, in charge of information exploitation for IARPA.

Once up and running, the database of old newspapers could quickly be expanded to include an inland sea of personal information scooped up by the agency’s warrantless data suction hoses. Unregulated, they could ask it to determine which Americans might likely pose a security risk—or have sympathies toward a particular cause, such as the antiwar movement, as was done during the 1960s and 1970s. The Aquaint robospy might then base its decision on the type of books a person purchased online, or chat room talk, or websites visited—or a similar combination of data. Such a system would have an enormous chilling effect on everyone’s everyday activities—what will the Aquaint computer think if I buy this book, or go to that website, or make this comment? Will I be suspected of being a terrorist or a spy or a subversive?

World Net Daily’s Aaron Klein reported earlier this month:

In February, the Sydney Morning Herald reported the Massachusetts-based multinational corporation, Raytheon – the world’s fifth largest defense contractor – had developed a “Google for Spies” operation.

Herald reporter Ryan Gallagher wrote that Raytheon had “secretly developed software capable of tracking people’s movements and predicting future behavior by mining data from social networking websites” like Facebook, Twitter, and Foursquare.

The software is called RIOT, or Rapid Information Overlay Technology.

Raytheon told the Herald it has not sold RIOT to any clients but admitted that, in 2010, it had shared the program’s software technology with the U.S. government as part of a “joint research and development effort … to help build a national security system capable of analyzing ‘trillions of entities’ from cyberspace.”

In April, RIOT was reportedly showcased at a U.S. government and industry national security conference for secretive, classified innovations, where it was listed under the category “big data – analytics, algorithms.”

Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst for the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project,argued …  that among the many problems with government large-scale analytics of social network information “is the prospect that government agencies will blunderingly use these techniques to tag, target and watchlist people coughed up by programs such as RIOT, or to target them for further invasions of privacy based on incorrect inferences.”

“The chilling effects of such activities,” he concluded, “while perhaps gradual, would be tremendous.”

Ginger McCall, attorney and director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Open Government program, told NBC in February, “This sort of software allows the government to surveil everyone.

“It scoops up a bunch of information about totally innocent people. There seems to be no legitimate reason to get this, other than that they can.”

As for RIOT’s ability to help catch terrorists, McCall called it “a lot of white noise.”  [True … Big data doesn’t work to keep us safe.]

The London Guardian further obtained a four-minute video that shows how the RIOT software uses photographs on social networks. The images, sometimes containing latitude and longitude details, are “automatically embedded by smartphones within so-called ‘exif header data.’

RIOT pulls out this information, analyzing not only the photographs posted by individuals, but also the location where these images were taken,” the Guardian reported.
Such sweeping data collection and analysis to predict future activity may further explain some of what the government is doing with the phone records of millions of Verizon customers. [Background here.]

***

“In the increasingly popular language of network theory, individuals are “nodes,” and relationships and interactions form the “links” binding them together; by mapping those connections, network scientists try to expose patterns that might not otherwise be apparent,” reported the Times.[Background here.]

In February 2006, more than a year after Obama was sworn as a U.S. senator, it was revealed the “supposedly defunct” Total Information Awareness data-mining and profiling program had been acquired by the NSA.

The Total Information Awareness program was first announced in 2002 as an early effort to mine large volumes of data for hidden connections.

Aaron Klein reported last week that Snowden might have worked at the NSA’s artificial intelligence unit at the University of Maryland:

Edward Snowden, the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations, told the London Guardian newspaper that he previously worked as a security guard for what the publication carefully described as “one of the agency’s covert facilities at the University of Maryland.”

***

Brian Ullmann, the university’s assistant vice president for marketing and communications, was asked for comment. He would not address the query, posed twice to his department by KleinOnline, about whether the NSA operates covert facilities in conjunction with the university.

Ullmann’s only comment was to affirm that Snowden was employed as a security guard at the university’s Center for the Advanced Study of Languages in 2005.

This is especially concerning given that the people who created the NSA spying program in the first place say that information gained through spying will be used to frame Americans that the government takes a dislike to.

Winston Churchill: War Hero or War Criminal?

Debate continues to rage about iconic leader

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
June 15, 2013

Winston Churchill led Britain to victory against the Nazi war machine, but debate continues to rage about whether he was responsible for overseeing atrocities that rival those ordered by Adolf Hitler.

History is written by the winners. Although there is lots to admire about Churchill’s bulldog spirit – and Brits are eternally grateful for his tenacious fight against the Nazis – much of Churchill’s dark past has been airbrushed out of history.

FURTHER READING

Rethinking Churchill

To gain any understanding of Churchill, we must go beyond the heroic images propagated for over half a century.

Churchill in ‘war crimes’ row

British bombing raids killed a thousand German civilians a day when World War II was already won, says the historian sparking debate on whether Churchill was a war criminal.

Germans call Churchill a war criminal

Winston Churchill was effectively a war criminal who sanctioned the extermination of Germany’s civilian population through indiscriminate bombing of towns and cities, an article in the country’s biggest-circulation newspaper claimed yesterday.

The bombing of Dresden

The morality of the Allied bombing campaign during the Second World War is still hotly debated. What should we feel about the decision to attack Dresden?

Why did the British start bombing civilians?

The RAF began the war with the policy of targeting enemy military or industrial targets. But then, early in 1942, that policy suddenly changed to embrace the deliberate destruction of civilians. Why?

CHURCHILL IN HIS OWN WORDS

(During first World War): “Perhaps the next time round the way to do it will be to kill women, children and the civilian population.”

Churchill on defending the morality of bombing from the air: “Now everyone’s at it. It’s simply a question of fashion – similar to that of whether short or long dresses are in.”

“I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.”
Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919.

“It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King.”
Commenting on Gandhi’s meeting with the Viceroy of India, 1931.

“I do not admit… that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia… by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race… has come in and taken its place.”
Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937.

“The choice was clearly open: crush them with vain and unstinted force, or try to give them what they want. These were the only alternatives and most people were unprepared for either. Here indeed was the Irish spectre – horrid and inexorcisable.”
Writing in The World Crisis and the Aftermath, 1923-31.

“The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate… I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.”
Churchill to Asquith, 1910.

“One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”
From his Great Contemporaries, 1937.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

ICONIC QUOTES

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”

“Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”

“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”

“Never, never, never give up.”

“We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

*********************