‘Patient Zero’ Is Concocted To Conceal Biowarfare Behind Ebola And HIV
By Yoichi Shimatsu
Rense.com
11-24-14
For medical science as in the Olympic games being first is what matters because nobody remembers who comes in second. The dueling claims over the discovery of the link between AIDS and HIV by Luc Montagnier and challenger Robert Gallo is legend, the microbiology equivalent of the OK Corral gunfight. In the contest for fame and glory, Gallo bit the dust while the Pasteur Institute’s Montagnier won the Nobel Prize and is walking tall into the history books.
The currrent West African outbreak thrust Peter Piot into the global spotlight as the microbiologist who discovered and named Ebola on a 1976 visit to the Belgian Congo (later Zaire and now the Democratic Republic of Congo). His co-discoverers are forgotten except for rare mention in a footnote.
Now zoologists at Oxford and Leuven universities led by research professor Nuno Faria are staking their claim to fame as the team that, after decades of controversy, identified the starting point for when HIV was transmitted from apes to the human population. Computer modeling enabled the researchers to trace the human immunodeficiency virus, which has spread as a worldwide AIDS contagion to more than 75 million patients, to its origin in the Congolese city of Kinshasa in the year 1920.
Discovery is a tricky notion, when considering these viruses existed in Africa long before the relatively new bioscience of virology. Paleovirology, the study of viruses in preserved tissue samples, from Egyptian mummies for instance, is still in its infancy and will someday overturn recent claims of virus origins. As much as humans dread viral outbreaks, many viruses have a long successful history because of their overall beneficial role in evolution of altering genes in organisms to produce mutated variants and new species. Without virus intrusions, higher species like our own, would not have arisen.
The Bio-engineers Strike Back
There are more sinister reasons than fame or pure science behind the current attempts by microbiologists to pin down the first cases of HIV and of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. In both of these medical mysteries, the date of origin is key to determining whether the cause of these deadly contagions was a natural event or laboratory-based genetic engineering.
Scientific opinion is heavily biased toward natural zoonosis, or transmission of animal diseases to humans. The professional reluctance to discuss artificial gene modification is due to the financial dependency of university and hospital researchers on grants from pharmaceuticals or under military contract. Enormous institutional pressure is exerted to deny and eliminate any mention of vaccine testing and biological warfare projects in the modification of increasingly toxic viruses. All-too many scientists are willing to present selective data for the perpetuation of an official cover-up.
By the same coin, science-related journalism is eager to “debunk” critics of the medical-science establishment as conspiracy theorists, for example, in a recent attack in the Telegraph newspaper against law professor and bioterrorism expert Francis Boyle for suggesting that the West African ebola outbreak was caused by Western military-funded research in the region’s hospitals.
Since biowarfare experiments remain top secret and pharmaceuticals disguise illegal drug tests under the cover of vaccine campaigns, it is an uphill battle for honest investigators to access any facts much less the “smoking gun” to prove medical-research malpractice. Whenever debunking fails to deter, threats can be real. This point was hammered home by the management purge at the BBC following the death of microbiologist David Kelly after he accused the Tony Blair government of falsifying data for its bogus claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The notorious Dr. Mengele is not exceptional in the medical field when pharmaceuticals and military-linked labs routinely conduct in-vitro experiments on the African population without risk of a World Health Organization (WHO) inquiry or war-crimes charges under the UN Biological Weapons Convention. The epicenter of the current Ebola outbreak is the impoverished Republic of Guinea, which never signed the biowarfare treaty, resulting in its status as a free-fire zone for deliberate infection and consequent “humanitarian intervention.” When it comes to biowarfare research, regulatory oversight is nonexistent.
Human Guinea Pigs
The date of the first case of Zaire-type Ebola in Guinea is important because it can be correlated with the presence of specific foreign medical teams in country. Natural transmission via a fruit bat is out of the question because of the 2,000-km flying distance from the virus source in Gabon-Congo (Brazzaville) contagion of a decade earlier.
The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), headed by former US national security adviser Anthony Lake, is promoting the outright fabrication that a 2-year-old Patient Zero contracted ebola in December 2013. That early starting date would have resulted in nearly triple the number of ebola-caused deaths that were reported by the WHO in March. The UNICEF claim, covered first by The New York Times, does not even come close to approaching known rates of transmission from infected persons to others.
The standard Markov method, used to calculate the rate of infectious transmission, indicates the first Ebola case occurred in late January or early February, coinciding with a UNICEF sponsored vaccine campaign involving the British adoption agency Plan International (PI) and Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF), in the Forestiere Region of the Republic of Guinea.
Is it not irresponsible for this writer to suggest that UNICEF officials deliberately infected children with lethal Ebola, probably distributed in cartons of milk as a reward for vaccination? It should be remembered that Anthony Lake as Clinton’s security adviser ordered the murderous “humanitarian interventions” against Haiti and Somalia (Blackhawk Down). What is incredible is not the potential for biowarfare deployment but that the UN could permit a war criminal to run its program to save the world’s children and infants.
The Rest…HERE
