Emerging Viruses-Aids & Ebola - By Leanard ... - preterhuman.net

contrary to international law as embodied in the Geneva Protocolthe use in war of all toxic chemical agents directed at men,animals, or plants. Its sponsors made clear that the resolutionapplied to irritant gases and anti-plant chemicals such as thoseused by the United States in Vietnam. Just this month, theresolution was passed by a vote of 80 to 3, with only Portugal,Australia, and the United States in opposition." [13]Next, Han Swyter, formerly with the DOD, addressed the NASassembly with the "Political Considerations and Analysis ofMilitary Requirements for Chemical and Biological Weapons."He commented:"We are talking about a dollar magnitude of only hundreds ofmillions of dollars annually. This is insignificant in an $80 billionDefense budget. On the other hand, these funds could instead bespent on other scientific or medical research, on welfare, or onhousing. . . ."The entire chemical and biological warfare research budget for1969, Covert reported, was $300 million. Research forherbicides, such as the ones used in Vietnam that were "designedto kill food crops or strip trees of foliage to deprive enemy forcesof ground cover," was granted $5 million. [9] I found itinteresting that twice this amount - $10 million - was requestedand received by DOD for developing an AIDS-like virus thatsame year. [14]After reading this, I reflected on Covert's admission in 'CuttingEdge' that despite preparations for President Nixon to ratify the1925 Geneva Accord, "Nixon assured Fort Detrick its researchwould continue."Lt. Col. Lucien Winegar, Covert wrote, said it would "be fair toassume" that the Frederick, MD labs:". . . would continue to work with dangerous organisms used inoffensive BW since any defense required knowledge of thoseagents. Continuation of the defensive research program wasauthorized in the biological warfare convention." [9]The ʺGrisly Businessʺ of CBWWithin months of Winegar's announcement, Swyter said beforethe NAS:"Chemical and biological war is grisly business. I am going toapproach it unemotionally, much as an economist analyzes theneed for mythical widgets, rather than like a Dr. Strangelove,gleefully plotting the destruction of millions by plague oranthrax. My general approach - that is, identifying objectives,breaking the problem into smaller manageable parts, and examine