Lionel Badal
August 09, 2009
Dick Cheney, 46th US Vice-President (speaking as the CEO of Halliburton (HAL) in 1999):
Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature… Energy is truly fundamental to the world’s economy. It is the basic, fundamental building block of the world’s economy. It is unlike any other commodity. [1]
Al Gore, 45th US Vice-President, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (June, 2004):
We almost certainly are at or near Peak Oil. [2]
Introduction
Over the past decade, a fierce debate has emerged amongst energy experts about whether global oil production was about to reach a peak, followed by an irreversible decline.
This event, commonly known as “Peak Oil” far outreaches the sole discipline of geology. From transportation to modern agriculture, petrochemicals and even the pharmaceutical industry all of them rely on one commodity: cheap and abundant oil. In order to sustain the needs of an ever globalized world, oil demand should double by 2050 [3].
Nonetheless, geological limitations will disrupt this improbable scenario. In fact, a growing proportion of energy experts argue that Peak Oil is impending and warn about the extraordinary scale of the crisis.
42 Years of Oil Left?
According to the 2009 BP Statistical Review, the world has precisely 42 years of oil left [4]. Those numbers come from a very simple formula, the R/P ratio, which consists of dividing the official number of global oil reserves by the level of today’s production.
Nevertheless, this methodology is dangerously defective on several key points as it ignores geological realities. Oil production does not consist of a plan level of production that brutally ends one day; it follows a bell-shaped curve.
Indeed, the important day occurs when production starts to decline, not when it ends. As it is a non-flexible commodity, even a small deficit in oil production can lead to a major price surge.
Finally, the R/P ratio does not acknowledge that production costs increase over the time; the first oil fields to be developed were logically the easy ones and so the most profitable. It is well recognized that remaining oil fields consist of whether poor quality oil or remotely located fields which need high technologies and expensive investments.
Therefore, relying on the R/P ratio gives a false impression of security while the actual situation is critical.
Global Oil Reserves: Lies and Manipulations
Oil is a strategic resource; therefore having oil is a key political and economical advantage for a state. This is why politics interfere in the evaluation of oil reserves, especially in countries with poor accountability records; that is, the majority of OPEC countries. In fact, OPEC oil reserves have dramatically increased during the 1980s and 1990s.
However, they have not discovered major oil fields after the 1970s. At this conjuncture, the question of what lays behind these fluctuations needs to be asked.
The geologist Dr. Colin Campbell, founder of ASPO [5], explains the hidden reasons that led to these changes:
In 1985, Kuwait, added 50% to its reserve. At that time, the OPEC quota was based on the reported reserves; the more you reported, the more you could produce. [6]
Fellow OPEC members who were unwilling to see the influence of Kuwait growing, simply raised their reserves soon after. Moreover, OPEC countries continue to present their reserves as flat despite having extracted huge amounts of oil during the past twenty years.
At this point, we should not forget that oil reserves reported by these countries are not audited by independent experts. In 2006, the notorious Petroleum Intelligence Weekly said it had access to confidential Kuwaiti reports which stated that reserves were half the official numbers [7].
In reaction, the Kuwaiti Oil Minister stated,
The Kuwait people are not concerned with numbers. This is related to national security. [8]
In 2006, Dr. Samsam Bakhtiari, a senior energy expert from the National Iranian Oil Company, declared that oil reserves in the Middle-East were “about half, or even less than what the respective national governments claim” and added “as for Iran, the usually accepted official 132 billion barrels is almost 100 billion barrels over any realistic assay” [9].
In fact, importing countries are simply asked to trust OPEC nations. Strangely, but surely, this is done by importing countries who assume these numbers are true and use them in their projections. On a report to the US Congress on Peak Oil, the US Government Accountability Office justly noted these problematic estimations [10].
The question of oil reserves is most relevant. As oil exporting countries have less oil in their ground, Peak Oil will arrive faster. Oil optimists who argue Peak Oil is still decades away rely on these same erroneous data.
In addition, if importing countries assume oil reserves are abundant as they do, the crisis will be unexpected, unprepared and misunderstood; in one word: overwhelming. Similarly, once oil shortages occur, oil importing countries may assume that exporting countries are deliberately reducing their oil exports to harm their national interests.
Such a flawed assumption from oil importing countries is likely to have serious repercussions, and eventually lead to new oil wars.
The Imminent Decline of Global Oil Production
In 2008 the International Energy Agency (IEA) conducted for the first time [11] a detailed field-by-field analysis of global oil production and its findings are bleak. Asked by a journalist on what the previous analysis relied on, the Chief-Economist of the IEA admitted, “it was mainly an assumption” [12].
In the 2008 World Energy Outlook (WEO), they have analysed about 800 fields, which account for ¾ of global reserves and more than 2/3 of global oil production [13].
They come to the conclusion that decline rates are far higher than previously thought, between 6.7 and 8.6% a year [14].
As result, they now estimate that to maintain the current levels of oil production by 2030 the world would need to develop and produce 45 MBD; as said by Dr. Birol, approximately four new Saudi-Arabias [15].
Simultaneously, they have analysed all the projects that are financially sanctioned in all the countries in the world (about 230) up to 2015. As it takes five to ten years to produce oil from a new field, they have a clear image of the coming situation.
When they add all the projects together (if all of them see the light of the day – unlikely with the current credit crunch [16]) they will bring about 25 millions barrels per day [17]. However, because of the important decline rates, the world will still be short of “at least” 12.5 MBD before 2015 [18].
Asked by a journalist if this means Peak Oil, Dr. Birol answered, “We are facing a serious threat” [19].
In 2009, Merrill Lynch conducted a similar analysis and concluded that, “the world now needed to replace an amount of oil output equivalent to Saudi Arabia’s production every two years” [20].
Yet, oil production is already in an irreversible decline in at least 54 of the 65 most important producing countries and we nowadays consume three barrels of oil for a single one discovered [21]; an unsustainable situation.
The latest annual report on geopolitical prospective from the US Joint Forces Command reached the stunning conclusion that:
By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD… The implications for future conflict are ominous...[22]
At this pace, global oil production could decline by 50% from its current level, as soon as 2030 [23].
A Contested Reality: By Whom and Why?
For many years, Peak Oil was ignored by officials from oil companies and governmental agencies such as the IEA [24]. They negligently repeated that production was not at risk. However, over the recent years and in light of indisputable facts, we have seen a radical change in the discourse of the IEA [25] and leading oil companies such as Chevron (CVX) [26] and Total (TOT) [27].
In a recent video interview, Chevron’s Vice-Chairman, Peter Robertson, clearly expressed his fears:
You know, it’s often times people will ask, ‘Why in the world would Chevron be encouraging its customers to use less energy?’ After all, we sell energy – that’s our product… In many ways, a lot of us are concerned about the ability of the world’s supply system to provide the energy that people need…[28]
To the desolation of many, the debate has not been closed. Indeed, a few voices continue to sponsor, actively and loudly, the vision that oil production does not face any danger. Amongst them, we find three notorious voices, namely the CERA oil consultant, the OPEC cartel and not surprisingly in regard to its notorious poor record of scientific objectivity, the oil company, Exxon Mobil (XOM).
At this conjuncture, we can picture the hidden motives for Exxon Mobil to do so. By telling the public that oil production will no longer be plentiful, the consequences for the company are numerous. They include the danger of diversification from oil and creating a context of mistrust regarding oil companies; all of them bad for short-term business.
Regarding the OPEC, we saw earlier how prone they were to manipulate their reserves and we should not expect much from official OPEC statements.
The following comment from Dr. Chalabi, the former OPEC Secretary-General, gives additional information about how the cartel really works:
OPEC countries do not care about what might happen 20 years from now. They care about what they get today. Because, these are politicians, they want more money, to spend rationally or not. [29]
Furthermore, Dr. Sadad al-Huseini, former Head of Exploration and Production at the Saudi-Aramco, publicly contradicted his former bosses, by declaring that, “oil is likely to peak at a 95 MBD plateau by 2015” [30].
Besides, Dr. Shokri Ghanem, former Head of the Research Division at OPEC's Secretariat, head of the Libyan National Oil Company and a relation of OPEC’s current Secretary General, admitted in a 2006 report published by the OPEC Secretariat:
All in all, most would appear to agree that peak oil output is not very far away for all of us. It could take place sometime within the next decade or so, which in fact means that there is not much time left for a world economy to be driven largely by oil. [31]
The Cambridge Energy Research Associates is a well-known energy consultant group and a leading opponent to Peak Oi l [32]. Yet, CERA has been accused of providing a biased vision of the situation as it is “close to the oil industry" [33].
The following declaration from Chris Holtom, former head of British military intelligence, currently a strategic consultant to the oil & gas industry, gives valuable information:
There is a pack of deceit and economy with the truth here - some wilful, some born of ignorance, or fear of "group-think" related to stock price or employment. It needs careful and persuasive exposure of agendas, motives and possible consequences... Peak Oil is a potential Black Swan event, where the consequences are so great that after it we spend most of our time justifying why we didn’t anticipate it… It is a global issue and global bodies need the clout and courage to address them. [34]
Any Viable Alternative Energy?
There is no easy, present, solution to the crisis. Alternatives to oil are still far from being a feasible replacement; hydrogen for example would require 30 to 50 years to replace oil economies [35].
Meanwhile, the automobile industry is now planning to develop electric cars in the near future. While the first electric cars are expected to come on line in 2010-12, in order to replace 50% of the car fleet, the world would need between 10 to 20 years [36].
Besides, as manufacturing a single car requires at least 20 barrels of oil [37], once oil production starts to decline, in 2011-2013[38], it will increasingly become difficult to develop the electric car on a massive scale.
In fact, the closer we get to Peak Oil, the more difficult a massive and costly emergency plan to develop alternative energies will become.
To quote a report on Peak Oil, commissioned by the US Department of Energy,
Previous energy transitions (wood to coal, coal to oil, etc.) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary. [39]
As mentioned to me by David Fridley, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a former colleague of the US Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu:
My own efforts have focused on the science of alternative energy. The deeper you go into this area, the less sanguine you become that there is any effective mitigation possible… The bottom line is that there is no thermodynamic match for petroleum. [40]
The Industrial Civilisation at a Turning Point
In the following declaration, Dr. Jeremy Leggett, former member of the UK Government Renewables advisory board and one of "the key players in putting climate change on the world agenda" according to Time Magazine [41], described in 2006 how the crisis could unfold:
The price of houses will collapse. Stock markets will crash. Within a short period, human wealth -- little more than a pile of paper at the best of times, even with the confidence about the future high among traders -- will shrivel. There will be emergency summits, diplomatic initiatives, urgent exploration efforts, but the turmoil will not subside. Thousands of companies will go bankrupt, and millions will be unemployed… The earth has always been a dangerous place, but now it will become a tinderbox. [42]
While world leaders are debating on how we should manage the current economic crisis, that none of them saw coming, in a 2006 interview, Dr. Colin Campbell effectively forecasted the 2008 oil spike, which was to be followed by a recession and a subsequent fall in oil prices; a scenario that unfolded exactly as he said:
I think we are facing an oil price shock, 100 or 200 dollars a barrel, an economic recession that cuts demand, and I will not be at all surprised if a fall in demand would make the price collapse again. So we might be back to 20 or 30 dollars a barrel next year perhaps. And so you have a price shock, a recession, a recovery, hits again the falling capacity limit, another price shock. And so I think that in the next few years, we have a sequence of vicious circles and gradually the reality of the situation will filtered through. We are on for a very volatile few years with enormous economic consequences. [43]
In fact, a former director at the IEA, who used to be the superior of Dr. Fatih Birol, told me during a discussion that,
The current (economic) crisis was caused by the insufficiency of (oil) supply from 2007 onwards, an avatar of Peak Oil. [44]
Similarly, a recent study on the 2008 oil shock [45], from the economist Dr. James Hamilton - Brookings Institution - concludes that:
The evidence to me is persuasive that, had there been no oil shock, we would have described the U.S. economy in 2007:Q4-2008:Q3 as growing slowly, but not in a recession. [46]
This extract from the Energy Watch Group study on oil production provides useful additional information:
The world is at the beginning of a structural change of its economic system. This change will be triggered by declining fossil fuel supplies and will influence almost all aspects of our daily life... The now beginning transition period probably has its own rules which are valid only during this phase. Things might happen which we never experienced before and which we may never experience again once this transition period has ended. [47]
We are entering a new world with completely different characteristics to the one we have been growing with, the one where boundaries were crossable. It will be an unattractive world of “less far, less fast, less often, and more expensive”[48]; a radical and unexpected evolution or what could better be described as a regression.
The transitory period we are entering now will be, to be sure, chaotic and fierce.
The end-of-the-fossil-hydrocarbons scenario is not a doom-and-gloom picture painted by pessimistic end-of-the-world prophets, but a view of scarcity in the coming years and decades that must be taken seriously. (Deutsche Bank, December, 2004) [49]
Footnotes
[1] Dick Cheney, “Speech at the British Institute of Petroleum”, (Institute of Petroleum, Autumn 1999) (here).
[2] Al Gore, “CNN Larry King Live”, (CNN, 13 June 2006) (here).
[3] Marvin Odum as quoted in NPR, "Shell Sees Global Oil Demand Doubling By 2050", (NPR, 27 February 2009) (here).
[4] British Petroleum, “2009 Statistical Review: Oil Reserves Table” (here).
[5] Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (here).
[6] Colin Campbell, “A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash”, (Lava Production, 2006) (here).
[7] Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, “Oil Reserves Accounting: The Case of Kuwait”, (Energy Intelligence, 30 January 2006) (here).
[8] Arab Times, “Kuwait oil reserves secret for national security; Shuwayib acting head of KPC”, (Arab Times, 13 May 2007), Web Edition No:12881 (here).
[9] MoneyWeek, "Why we must take Peak Oil seriously", (MoneyWeek, 13 September 2006) (here).
[10] GAO, “Crude Oil: Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes it Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production”, (US Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, February 2007) (here).
[11] George Monbiot, "When will the oil run out?" (The Guardian, 15 December 2008) (here).
[12] Ibid
[13] Olivier Rech interviewed by the author, (Paris: IEA HQ, 18 December 2008).
[14] John Kemp, "Oil industry running faster just to keep up?: John Kemp", (Reuters, 19 November 2008) (here).
[15] The Times, "World needs four new Saudi Arabias, warns IEA", (Times Online, 12 November 2008) (here).
[16] Spencer Swartz, "OPEC Nations Delay Drilling Projects", (The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2009) (here).
[17] Fatih Birol interviewed by Andrew Evans, "Fatih Birol of the IEA talks the talk about peak oil", (Aceditor, January 2008) (here).
[18] Ibid
[19] Ibid
[20] Tom Arnold, "Oil output could fall by 30m bpd by 2015 - Merrill", (Arabian Business, 4 February 2009) (here).
[21] Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, “Statements on Oil by the Energy Committee”, (KVA, 14 October 2005) (here).
[22] USJFCOM, "Joint Operating Environment 2008", (Joint Forces Command, November 2008), page 17 and 19 (here).
[23] Energy Watch Group, "Crude Oil - The Supply Outlook", (EWG, February 2008) (here).
[24] George Monbiot, "When will the oil run out?" (The Guardian, 15 December 2008) (here).
[25] Javier Blas and Carola Hoyos, “Oil price to bounce back with recovery, IEA warns”, (Financial Times, 6 November 2008).
[26] David J. O'Reilly, “CEO, Chevron in their Real Issues Ad”, (Chevron Corporation, 12 July 2005) (here).
[27] Carola Hoyos, "Falling oil poses threat to supplies", (Financial Times, 22 October 2008) (here).
[28] Peter Robertson, "How Chevron Makes the Most of the Energy We Have", (Chevron, April 2009) (here).
[29] Fadhil Chalabi, “A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash”, (Lava Production, 2006) (here).
[30] Sadad al Husseini interviewed by Steve Andrews, "Sadad al Husseini sees peak in 2015", (ASPO USA , 14 September 2005) (here).
[31] Shokri Ghanem interviewed in the “OPEC Bulletin”, (OPEC, 11-12 2006), p. 60 to 63 (here).
[32] CERA Press Release, "Peak Oil Theory – “World Running Out of Oil Soon” – Is Faulty; Could Distort Policy & Energy Debate", (CERA, 14 November 2006) (here).
[33] Energy Watch Group, "Peak Oil could trigger meltdown of society", (Press release, 22 October 2007) (here).
[34] Email discussion with the author, 14 May 2009.
[35] US National Academy of Engineering, “The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs”, (The National Academy Press, 2004).
[36] R. Hirsch, R. Bezdek and R. Wendling, “Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management”, (US Department of Energy, February 2005).
[37] Belfast Telegraph, "Scientists warn that oil supplies will start to run in four years' time" (here).
[38] Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security, “The Oil Crunch Press Release”, 29 October 2008 (here).
[39] R. Hirsch, R. Bezdek and R. Wendling, “Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management”, (US Department of Energy, February 2005), p. 64 (here).
[40] Email discussion with the author, 11 July 2009
[41] Jonathon Gatehouse, "When the oil runs out", (Macleans, 9 February 2006) (here).
[42] Ibid
[43] Dr. Colin Campbell as interviewed by Jonathan Holmes, "Peak Oil?", (ABC, 10 July 2006) (here).
[44] Email discussion with the author (under the Chatham House Rule), 30 April 2009.
[45] John Hamilton, “Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08”, (Brookings Institution, 23 March 2009).
[46] Ibid, p. 40.
[47] Energy Watch Group, “Crude Oil the Supply Outlook“, (EWG, October 2007), p. 70 (here).
[48] Yves Cochet, "Pétrole Apocalypse", (Fayard, 1 Septembre 2005).
[49] Deutsche Bank, “Energy Prospects after the Petroleum Age“, (DB: 2 December 2004), page. 10 (here).
http://seekingalpha.com/article/154901-peak-oil-for-dummies
Friday, August 28, 2009
H1N1 Pandemic: Pentagon Planning Deployment of Troops in Support of Nationwide Vaccination
Militarization of public health in the case of emergency is now official
By Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, July 31, 2009
Related Article: Michel Chossudovsky, Martial Law and the Militarization of Public Health: The Worldwide H1N1 Flu Vaccination Program, Global Research, July 2009.
According to CNN, the Pentagon is "to establish regional teams of military personnel to assist civilian authorities in the event of a significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall, according to Defense Department officials."
"The proposal is awaiting final approval from Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The officials would not be identified because the proposal from U.S. Northern Command's Gen. Victor Renuart has not been approved by the secretary.
The plan calls for military task forces to work in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is no final decision on how the military effort would be manned, but one source said it would likely include personnel from all branches of the military.
It has yet to be determined how many troops would be needed and whether they would come from the active duty or the National Guard and Reserve forces.
Civilian authorities would lead any relief efforts in the event of a major outbreak, the official said. The military, as they would for a natural disaster or other significant emergency situation, could provide support and fulfill any tasks that civilian authorities could not, such as air transport or testing of large numbers of viral samples from infected patients.
As a first step, Gates is being asked to sign a so-called "execution order" that would authorize the military to begin to conduct the detailed planning to execute the proposed plan.
Orders to deploy actual forces would be reviewed later, depending on how much of a health threat the flu poses this fall, the officials said." (CNN, Military planning for possible H1N1 outbreak, July 2009, emphasis added)
The implications are far-reaching.
The decision points towards the militarization of civilian institutions, including law enforcement and public health.
A nationwide vaccination program is already planned for the Fall.
The pharmaceutical industry is slated to deliver 160 million vaccine doses by the Fall, enough doses to vaccinate more than half of America's population.
The Pentagon is already planning on the number of troops to be deployed,. with a view to supporting a mass vaccinaiton program.
It is worth noting that this involvement of the military is not being decided by the President, but by the Secretary of Defense, which suggests that the Pentagon is, in a key issue of of national interest, overriding the President and Commander in Chief. The US Congress has not been consulted on the issue.
This decision to mobilise the Armed Forces in the vaccination campaign is taken in anticipation of a national emergency. Although no national emergency has been called, the presumption is that a national public health emergency will occur, using the WHO Level 6 Pandemic as a pretext and a justification.
Other countries, including Canada, the UK and France may follow suit, calling upon their Armed Forces to play a role in support of the H1N1 vaccination program.
US Northern Command
Much of the groundwork for the intervention of the military has already been established. There are indications that these "regional teams" have already been established under USNORTHCOM, which has been involved in preparedness training and planning in the case of a flu pandemic (See U.S. Northern Command - Avian Flu. USNORTHCOM website).
Within the broader framework of "Disaster Relief", Northern Command has, in the course of the last two years, defined a mandate in the eventuality of a public health emergency or a flu pandemic. The emphasis is on the militarization of public health whereby NORTHCOM would oversee the activities of civilian institutions involved in health related services.
According Brig. Gen. Robert Felderman, deputy director of USNORTHCOM’s Plans, Policy and Strategy Directorate: “USNORTHCOM is the global synchronizer – the global coordinator – for pandemic influenza across the combatant commands”(emphasis added) (See Gail Braymen, USNORTHCOM contributes pandemic flu contingency planning expertise to trilateral workshop, USNORTHCOM, April 14, 2008, See also USNORTHCOM. Pandemic Influenza Chain Training (U) pdf)
“Also, the United States in 1918 had the Spanish influenza. We were the ones who had the largest response to [a pandemic] in more recent history. So I discussed what we did then, what we expect to have happen now and the numbers that we would expect in a pandemic influenza.”
The potential number of fatalities in the United States in a modern pandemic influenza could reach nearly two million, according to Felderman. Not only would the nation’s economy suffer, but the Department of Defense would still have to be ready and able to protect and defend the country and provide support of civil authorities in disaster situations. While virtually every aspect of society would be affected, “the implications for Northern Command will be very significant.”
“[A pandemic would have] a huge economic impact, in addition to the defense-of-our-nation impact,” Felderman said. The United States isn’t alone in preparing for such a potential catastrophe. (Gail Braymen, op cit)
Apart from the CNN dispatch and a FOX news report, there has been virtually no mainstream press coverage of this issue. No statement has been made by USNORTHCOM. The Fox New Report suggests that US troops would be involved in organising military quarantines (see videoclip below).
See also: Fox News Report
We invite our readers to review Global Research's News Highlight Dossier: H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic Dossier. The latter contains a collection of articles and analytical reports.
Related Article: Michel Chossudovsky, Martial Law and the Militarization of Public Health: The Worldwide H1N1 Flu Vaccination Program, Global Research, July 2009.
Addendum.
The US military has for some years been involved in Influenza Surveillance, in collaboration with partner Armed Forces in different countries. The Pentagon is also in liason with the Atlanta based CDC. The US military is actively involved in laboratory based activities internationally with partner Armed Forces. The following report is of particular relevance to the Pentagon's potential role in a H1N1 Vaccination Program. According to the Institute of Medicine, quoted by Health Insurance Law Weekly:
"The DoD-Global Emerging Infections System, through its avian influenza/pandemic influenza activities at the [DoD] overseas laboratories and headquarters, has contributed greatly to the development of laboratory and communications infrastructures within partner countries. Beneficial effects can be seen from current DoD-GEIS efforts in 56 countries to assist its public health partners in building capacity through training and support of laboratory and communications infrastructures."
Writing in the article, Col. James Neville, MD, MPH, of the US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks City-Base, Texas, and colleagues state, "During seven complete influenza seasons, the DoD Global Laboratory-Based Influenza Surveillance Program...coordinated and expanded influenza surveillance efforts among the uniformed services and with DoD partner nations overseas, and operated in concert with WHO and CDC programs. As a result, the DoD and other global communities benefited from improved surveillance and expanded influenza laboratory and epidemiologic capability. The generated data and information supported timely, informed decision making in response to threats, expanded the data set used to select the components for seasonal influenza vaccines, and provided candidate seed viruses for possible use in influenza vaccines used worldwide."
In a commentary in the same issue, Dr. Patrick W. Kelley, MD, DrPH, of the Institute of Medicine, The National Academies, notes that, "The somewhat unexpected emergence of novel H1N1 in Mexico, rather than in the anticipated Asian setting, highlights a lesson learned about the need for comprehensive global influenza surveillance. This is a lesson that geographically diverse foreign military health systems may be well-positioned to help address."
He continues, "The success of the US DoD system, and the particular epidemiologic characteristics of military populations and military health systems, suggest that global influenza surveillance and response could be more comprehensive and informative if other military organizations around the world took advantage of their comparative organizational advantages to emulate, extend, and institutionalize the US DoD approach."
The article is "Department of Defense Global Laboratory-Based Influenza Surveillance: 1998-2005" by Angela B Owens, MPH; Linda C Canas, BS; Kevin L Russell, MD, MTM&H; James Neville, MD, MPH; Julie A Pavlin, MD, PhD, MPH; Victor H MacIntosh, MD, MPH; Gregory C Gray, MD, MPH; and Joel C Gaydos, MD, MPH. The commentary is "A Commentary on the Military Role in Global Influenza Surveillance" by Dr. Patrick W Kelley, MD, DrPH. Both appear in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 37, Issue 3 (September 2009) published by Elsevier. (Health Insurance Law Weekly, August 2, 2009)
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2009
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=14580
By Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, July 31, 2009
Related Article: Michel Chossudovsky, Martial Law and the Militarization of Public Health: The Worldwide H1N1 Flu Vaccination Program, Global Research, July 2009.
According to CNN, the Pentagon is "to establish regional teams of military personnel to assist civilian authorities in the event of a significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall, according to Defense Department officials."
"The proposal is awaiting final approval from Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The officials would not be identified because the proposal from U.S. Northern Command's Gen. Victor Renuart has not been approved by the secretary.
The plan calls for military task forces to work in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is no final decision on how the military effort would be manned, but one source said it would likely include personnel from all branches of the military.
It has yet to be determined how many troops would be needed and whether they would come from the active duty or the National Guard and Reserve forces.
Civilian authorities would lead any relief efforts in the event of a major outbreak, the official said. The military, as they would for a natural disaster or other significant emergency situation, could provide support and fulfill any tasks that civilian authorities could not, such as air transport or testing of large numbers of viral samples from infected patients.
As a first step, Gates is being asked to sign a so-called "execution order" that would authorize the military to begin to conduct the detailed planning to execute the proposed plan.
Orders to deploy actual forces would be reviewed later, depending on how much of a health threat the flu poses this fall, the officials said." (CNN, Military planning for possible H1N1 outbreak, July 2009, emphasis added)
The implications are far-reaching.
The decision points towards the militarization of civilian institutions, including law enforcement and public health.
A nationwide vaccination program is already planned for the Fall.
The pharmaceutical industry is slated to deliver 160 million vaccine doses by the Fall, enough doses to vaccinate more than half of America's population.
The Pentagon is already planning on the number of troops to be deployed,. with a view to supporting a mass vaccinaiton program.
It is worth noting that this involvement of the military is not being decided by the President, but by the Secretary of Defense, which suggests that the Pentagon is, in a key issue of of national interest, overriding the President and Commander in Chief. The US Congress has not been consulted on the issue.
This decision to mobilise the Armed Forces in the vaccination campaign is taken in anticipation of a national emergency. Although no national emergency has been called, the presumption is that a national public health emergency will occur, using the WHO Level 6 Pandemic as a pretext and a justification.
Other countries, including Canada, the UK and France may follow suit, calling upon their Armed Forces to play a role in support of the H1N1 vaccination program.
US Northern Command
Much of the groundwork for the intervention of the military has already been established. There are indications that these "regional teams" have already been established under USNORTHCOM, which has been involved in preparedness training and planning in the case of a flu pandemic (See U.S. Northern Command - Avian Flu. USNORTHCOM website).
Within the broader framework of "Disaster Relief", Northern Command has, in the course of the last two years, defined a mandate in the eventuality of a public health emergency or a flu pandemic. The emphasis is on the militarization of public health whereby NORTHCOM would oversee the activities of civilian institutions involved in health related services.
According Brig. Gen. Robert Felderman, deputy director of USNORTHCOM’s Plans, Policy and Strategy Directorate: “USNORTHCOM is the global synchronizer – the global coordinator – for pandemic influenza across the combatant commands”(emphasis added) (See Gail Braymen, USNORTHCOM contributes pandemic flu contingency planning expertise to trilateral workshop, USNORTHCOM, April 14, 2008, See also USNORTHCOM. Pandemic Influenza Chain Training (U) pdf)
“Also, the United States in 1918 had the Spanish influenza. We were the ones who had the largest response to [a pandemic] in more recent history. So I discussed what we did then, what we expect to have happen now and the numbers that we would expect in a pandemic influenza.”
The potential number of fatalities in the United States in a modern pandemic influenza could reach nearly two million, according to Felderman. Not only would the nation’s economy suffer, but the Department of Defense would still have to be ready and able to protect and defend the country and provide support of civil authorities in disaster situations. While virtually every aspect of society would be affected, “the implications for Northern Command will be very significant.”
“[A pandemic would have] a huge economic impact, in addition to the defense-of-our-nation impact,” Felderman said. The United States isn’t alone in preparing for such a potential catastrophe. (Gail Braymen, op cit)
Apart from the CNN dispatch and a FOX news report, there has been virtually no mainstream press coverage of this issue. No statement has been made by USNORTHCOM. The Fox New Report suggests that US troops would be involved in organising military quarantines (see videoclip below).
See also: Fox News Report
We invite our readers to review Global Research's News Highlight Dossier: H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic Dossier. The latter contains a collection of articles and analytical reports.
Related Article: Michel Chossudovsky, Martial Law and the Militarization of Public Health: The Worldwide H1N1 Flu Vaccination Program, Global Research, July 2009.
Addendum.
The US military has for some years been involved in Influenza Surveillance, in collaboration with partner Armed Forces in different countries. The Pentagon is also in liason with the Atlanta based CDC. The US military is actively involved in laboratory based activities internationally with partner Armed Forces. The following report is of particular relevance to the Pentagon's potential role in a H1N1 Vaccination Program. According to the Institute of Medicine, quoted by Health Insurance Law Weekly:
"The DoD-Global Emerging Infections System, through its avian influenza/pandemic influenza activities at the [DoD] overseas laboratories and headquarters, has contributed greatly to the development of laboratory and communications infrastructures within partner countries. Beneficial effects can be seen from current DoD-GEIS efforts in 56 countries to assist its public health partners in building capacity through training and support of laboratory and communications infrastructures."
Writing in the article, Col. James Neville, MD, MPH, of the US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks City-Base, Texas, and colleagues state, "During seven complete influenza seasons, the DoD Global Laboratory-Based Influenza Surveillance Program...coordinated and expanded influenza surveillance efforts among the uniformed services and with DoD partner nations overseas, and operated in concert with WHO and CDC programs. As a result, the DoD and other global communities benefited from improved surveillance and expanded influenza laboratory and epidemiologic capability. The generated data and information supported timely, informed decision making in response to threats, expanded the data set used to select the components for seasonal influenza vaccines, and provided candidate seed viruses for possible use in influenza vaccines used worldwide."
In a commentary in the same issue, Dr. Patrick W. Kelley, MD, DrPH, of the Institute of Medicine, The National Academies, notes that, "The somewhat unexpected emergence of novel H1N1 in Mexico, rather than in the anticipated Asian setting, highlights a lesson learned about the need for comprehensive global influenza surveillance. This is a lesson that geographically diverse foreign military health systems may be well-positioned to help address."
He continues, "The success of the US DoD system, and the particular epidemiologic characteristics of military populations and military health systems, suggest that global influenza surveillance and response could be more comprehensive and informative if other military organizations around the world took advantage of their comparative organizational advantages to emulate, extend, and institutionalize the US DoD approach."
The article is "Department of Defense Global Laboratory-Based Influenza Surveillance: 1998-2005" by Angela B Owens, MPH; Linda C Canas, BS; Kevin L Russell, MD, MTM&H; James Neville, MD, MPH; Julie A Pavlin, MD, PhD, MPH; Victor H MacIntosh, MD, MPH; Gregory C Gray, MD, MPH; and Joel C Gaydos, MD, MPH. The commentary is "A Commentary on the Military Role in Global Influenza Surveillance" by Dr. Patrick W Kelley, MD, DrPH. Both appear in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 37, Issue 3 (September 2009) published by Elsevier. (Health Insurance Law Weekly, August 2, 2009)
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2009
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=14580
Exposed: The Swine Flu Hoax
By Andrew Bosworth, Ph.D.
The alarm has been sounded. Politicians, pharmaceutical executives and media conglomerates would have us believe that a 1918-style pandemic is a real threat. The 1918 pandemic, however, evolved out of conditions unique to World War I, for four specific reasons.
Why 2009 is Not 1918
First, World War I was characterized by millions of troops living in waterlogged trenches along the Western Front. This war zone became fertile ground for an opportunistic virus, as medical literature reveals:
"…a landscape that was contaminated with respiratory irritants such as chlorine and phosgene, and characterized by stress and overcrowding, the partial starvation in civilians, and the opportunity for rapid ‘passage’ of influenza in young soldiers would have provided the opportunity for multiple but small mutational charges throughout the viral genome." (1)
Second, the war witnessed the growth of industrial-scale military camps and embarkation ports, such as Etaples in France, enabling the flu virus to enter into another phase of accelerated mutation. On any given day, Etaples was a makeshift city of 100,000 troops from around the British Empire and its former dominions. These soldiers concentrated into unsanitary barracks, tents and mess halls.
Today, many cities and nations have dense concentrations of people; none of these, however, are geographically isolated under the conditions of trench warfare and World War I-style deployments. Of course, there are smaller, sub-populations of people in prisons (prone to multi-drug resistant tuberculosis), in military barracks (prone to respiratory pathogens and meningococcal infections) and on cruise ships (prone to the Norovisus) – all proof of the connection between human confinement on the one hand and infectious disease on the other.
Third, after the war, ships such as the USS Alaskan became floating Petri dishes. Thousands of soldiers were packed like sardines for the long voyage home, allowing the virus to reverberate within hermetically-sealed units.
Fourth, returning troops were stuffed into boxcars for the train trip back to military bases, where they infected new recruits. Later, it was documented that Army regiments whose barracks allowed only 45 square feet per soldier had a flu incidence up to ten times that of regiments afforded 78 square feet per man. (2)
The 1918 flu virus became pandemic because, during World War I, the normal host-pathogen relationship was abandoned when millions of young men crowded into geographical confinement. In World War I, a flu virus was presented with a seemingly limitless number of hosts – almost all young, male, and with compromised immune systems. Unconstrained and unchecked by the usual habits of human behavior, the virus went rogue.
Flu viruses are smart, but they are not suicidal: if the host becomes extinct the virus will become extinct too. The evolutionary strategy, from the virus’s perspective, is to stay one step ahead of the immune systems of both humans and animals – but not two steps ahead. The flu virus aims to infect and reproduce without killing a critical mass of the hosts, of the herd, so the virus’s virulence is ameliorated after it becomes fatal for people on the margins of the host population – the weak and the elderly. World War I disrupted this synchronized, co-evolutionary relationship between flu viruses and human populations.
No flu since 1918 has been strong enough to produce, in millions of people, a "cytokine storm," which is an immunological over-reaction leading to pulmonary edema (the lungs filling with fluid) - the curse of those with the strongest immune systems, normally between 20 and 40 years of age.
In normal flu pandemics, even in severe ones, the flu virus kills a portion of the weak and elderly. This appears to be the case in 1837 for Germany and in 1890 for Russia in 1890, though reliable medical evidence is scarce. It was certainly true for the Asian flu of 1957 and the Hong Kong flu of 1968, neither of which were significantly fatal for young adults. The flu 1976-1977 has been exposed as a boondoggle, a fraud, with far more people dying of the vaccine than from the flu itself.
Indeed, 1918 was an aberration. Since then, no flu has scythed away so many people: some 500,000 Americans and anywhere between 25 - 50 million people worldwide in three waves: first in March, then in August (the deadliest wave), and in then again in November of 1918, lasting into the spring of 1919.
The origins of the 1918 pandemic can be traced back to the trenches of the Western Front in 1915, 1916, and 1917 – to the world’s first large-scale industrial and international war. There was no other cause: If WWI had not been fought, it is inconceivable that the 1918 flu pandemic would have been so severe. Today, in 2009, absent the conditions of WWI, it is preposterous for political and medical authorities to claim that the swine flu is a menace to society.
The Mysterious Origins of the H1N1 "Swine Flu" Virus
If the current H1N1 swine flu virus does become abnormally lethal, there would be three leading explanations: first, that the virus was accidentally released, or escaped, from a laboratory; second, that a disgruntled lab employee unleashed the virus (as happened, according to the official version of events, with the 2001 anthrax attack); or third, that a group, corporation or government agency intentionally released the virus in the interests of profit and power.
Each of the three scenarios represents a plausible explanation should the swine virus become lethal. After all, the 1918 flu virus was dead and buried – until, that is, scientists unearthed a lead coffin to obtain a biopsy of the corpse it contained. Later, researchers similarly disturbed an Inuit woman buried under permafrost. (3)
The US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, with a scientist from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, then began to reconstruct the 1918 Spanish flu. Had Iran or North Korea engaged in Frankenstein experiments (complete with ransacking graves) to reverse engineer the 1918 virus the US and the UK would have gone ballistic at the UN Security Council.
Interestingly, numerous doctors and scientists suspect that the swine flu virus was cultured in a laboratory. A mainstream Australian virologist, Adrian Gibbs - who was one of the first to analyze the genetic properties of the 2009 swine flu – believes that scientists accidentally created the H1N1 virus while producing vaccines. And Dr. John Carlo, Dallas Co. Medical Director, "This strain of swine influenza that’s been cultured in a laboratory is something that’s not been seen anywhere actually in the United States and the world, so this is actually a new strain of influenza that’s been identified."(4) Because of this, the 2009 swine flu virus -- which has yet to be detected in any animals -- has a rather suspicious pedigree.
The Propaganda Campaign
Across the mainstream media, reports announce one swine flu death after another (even though ordinary flu kills about 35,000 Americans each year). Upon closer scrutiny of what passes for journalism, the victims have "underlying health problems," or "a common underlying health condition," or "significant medical conditions."
One news headline even blared: "Swine flu mother dies after giving birth, leaving her premature baby fighting for life," and only later, buried deep in the story underneath, did it explain that she had "other medical problems" which included being confined to a wheelchair because of a serious car accident.
Citizens the world over are increasingly skeptical of hyped headlines followed by smaller-print caveats. They are uneasy with the effort to create "doublethink" – a term coined by George Orwell in 1984 and a reference to holding two contradictory ideas in one’s mind simultaneously, paralyzing critical thought.
The media has never been in the habit of reporting the cases of people who, for no known reason, die of the flu. Out of the 35,000 Americans who die each year from flu-related illnesses, some are bound to be relatively young and healthy. It happens. This year, however, their stories are front-page news.
More recently, news reports claim that the H1N1 swine flu can affect people in the lungs and lead to pneumonia. This, however, is what separates the flu from the common cold in the first place; and this is why tens of thousands of elderly people die of flu-related symptoms each year. Fox News even claimed that "this one morphs and mutates and comes back in different ways…," (like all flu viruses). In short, the media now uses the flu’s own ordinary symptoms to fuel fear.
Fortunately, a growing wave of online media challenges the propaganda. Back in 1976, there were no rival voices, and the Center for Disease Control’s manipulative television commercials dominated the airwaves. Fortunately, as a testament to official shamelessness, these videos are now archived and searchable on the Internet under the title of "1976 Swine Flu Propaganda."
Now, like then, the US government’s pandemic policy alternates between the ridiculous and the repugnant. The government’s flu website is revealing. First, the historical section on the 1918 virus is intellectually dishonest, making absolutely no link between the unique conditions of World War I and the flu pandemic; instead, the site propagates the erroneous notion that this virus came out of the blue. (5)
Second, the site announces an absurd American Idol-style video contest: "Create a Video About Preventing or Dealing With the Flu & Be Eligible to Win $2500 Cash!" (Congress has earmarked 8 billion dollars for swine flu prevention and can only offer $2,500 to the proles -- or, rather, to the one prole who, rising above mediocrity, best parrots the Party Line.)
And third, the site encourages the use of Twitter to "stay informed…" There is something mildly disturbing about the US federal government promoting Twitter as a form of resistance to foreign authoritarianism, while, simultaneously, using social networking to further federalize and protect the abuse of power at home.
1976 + 1984 = 2009
In sum, it appears that the 2009 swine flu pandemic will not be 1918. It might be a 1976-style hoax, however, serving profit and power - with a bit of Orwell’s 1984 thrown in for good measure.
Andrew Bosworth, Ph.D.
Author of Biotech Empire (Amazon)
Notes
1. JS Oxford, A Sefton, R Jackson, W Innes, RS Daniels, and NPAS Johnson, “World War I may have allowed the emergence of ‘Spanish’ influenza,” The Lancet/ Infectious Diseases Vol. 2 February 2002.
2. Byerly CR. 2005. Fever of War: The Influenza Epidemic in the U.S. Army during World War I. New York, NY: New York University Press.
3. Ann H. Reid, Thomas G. Fanning, Johan V. Hultin, and Jeffery K. Taubenberger, “Origin and Evolution of the 1918 Spanish Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin Gene, PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Division of Molecular Pathology, Department of Cellular Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC. Communicated by Edwin D. Kilbourne, New York.
4. Paul Joseph Watson, “Medical Director: Swine Flu Was ‘Cultured In A Laboratory,” This strain of swine influenza that’s been cultured in a laboratory is something that’s not been seen anywhere actually in the United States and the world, so this is actually a new strain of influenza that’s been identified. April 26, 2009.
5. http://www.flu.gov/
24 Aug 2009
*****
http://www.legitgov.org/essay_bosworth_swine_flu_hoax_240809.html
The alarm has been sounded. Politicians, pharmaceutical executives and media conglomerates would have us believe that a 1918-style pandemic is a real threat. The 1918 pandemic, however, evolved out of conditions unique to World War I, for four specific reasons.
Why 2009 is Not 1918
First, World War I was characterized by millions of troops living in waterlogged trenches along the Western Front. This war zone became fertile ground for an opportunistic virus, as medical literature reveals:
"…a landscape that was contaminated with respiratory irritants such as chlorine and phosgene, and characterized by stress and overcrowding, the partial starvation in civilians, and the opportunity for rapid ‘passage’ of influenza in young soldiers would have provided the opportunity for multiple but small mutational charges throughout the viral genome." (1)
Second, the war witnessed the growth of industrial-scale military camps and embarkation ports, such as Etaples in France, enabling the flu virus to enter into another phase of accelerated mutation. On any given day, Etaples was a makeshift city of 100,000 troops from around the British Empire and its former dominions. These soldiers concentrated into unsanitary barracks, tents and mess halls.
Today, many cities and nations have dense concentrations of people; none of these, however, are geographically isolated under the conditions of trench warfare and World War I-style deployments. Of course, there are smaller, sub-populations of people in prisons (prone to multi-drug resistant tuberculosis), in military barracks (prone to respiratory pathogens and meningococcal infections) and on cruise ships (prone to the Norovisus) – all proof of the connection between human confinement on the one hand and infectious disease on the other.
Third, after the war, ships such as the USS Alaskan became floating Petri dishes. Thousands of soldiers were packed like sardines for the long voyage home, allowing the virus to reverberate within hermetically-sealed units.
Fourth, returning troops were stuffed into boxcars for the train trip back to military bases, where they infected new recruits. Later, it was documented that Army regiments whose barracks allowed only 45 square feet per soldier had a flu incidence up to ten times that of regiments afforded 78 square feet per man. (2)
The 1918 flu virus became pandemic because, during World War I, the normal host-pathogen relationship was abandoned when millions of young men crowded into geographical confinement. In World War I, a flu virus was presented with a seemingly limitless number of hosts – almost all young, male, and with compromised immune systems. Unconstrained and unchecked by the usual habits of human behavior, the virus went rogue.
Flu viruses are smart, but they are not suicidal: if the host becomes extinct the virus will become extinct too. The evolutionary strategy, from the virus’s perspective, is to stay one step ahead of the immune systems of both humans and animals – but not two steps ahead. The flu virus aims to infect and reproduce without killing a critical mass of the hosts, of the herd, so the virus’s virulence is ameliorated after it becomes fatal for people on the margins of the host population – the weak and the elderly. World War I disrupted this synchronized, co-evolutionary relationship between flu viruses and human populations.
No flu since 1918 has been strong enough to produce, in millions of people, a "cytokine storm," which is an immunological over-reaction leading to pulmonary edema (the lungs filling with fluid) - the curse of those with the strongest immune systems, normally between 20 and 40 years of age.
In normal flu pandemics, even in severe ones, the flu virus kills a portion of the weak and elderly. This appears to be the case in 1837 for Germany and in 1890 for Russia in 1890, though reliable medical evidence is scarce. It was certainly true for the Asian flu of 1957 and the Hong Kong flu of 1968, neither of which were significantly fatal for young adults. The flu 1976-1977 has been exposed as a boondoggle, a fraud, with far more people dying of the vaccine than from the flu itself.
Indeed, 1918 was an aberration. Since then, no flu has scythed away so many people: some 500,000 Americans and anywhere between 25 - 50 million people worldwide in three waves: first in March, then in August (the deadliest wave), and in then again in November of 1918, lasting into the spring of 1919.
The origins of the 1918 pandemic can be traced back to the trenches of the Western Front in 1915, 1916, and 1917 – to the world’s first large-scale industrial and international war. There was no other cause: If WWI had not been fought, it is inconceivable that the 1918 flu pandemic would have been so severe. Today, in 2009, absent the conditions of WWI, it is preposterous for political and medical authorities to claim that the swine flu is a menace to society.
The Mysterious Origins of the H1N1 "Swine Flu" Virus
If the current H1N1 swine flu virus does become abnormally lethal, there would be three leading explanations: first, that the virus was accidentally released, or escaped, from a laboratory; second, that a disgruntled lab employee unleashed the virus (as happened, according to the official version of events, with the 2001 anthrax attack); or third, that a group, corporation or government agency intentionally released the virus in the interests of profit and power.
Each of the three scenarios represents a plausible explanation should the swine virus become lethal. After all, the 1918 flu virus was dead and buried – until, that is, scientists unearthed a lead coffin to obtain a biopsy of the corpse it contained. Later, researchers similarly disturbed an Inuit woman buried under permafrost. (3)
The US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, with a scientist from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, then began to reconstruct the 1918 Spanish flu. Had Iran or North Korea engaged in Frankenstein experiments (complete with ransacking graves) to reverse engineer the 1918 virus the US and the UK would have gone ballistic at the UN Security Council.
Interestingly, numerous doctors and scientists suspect that the swine flu virus was cultured in a laboratory. A mainstream Australian virologist, Adrian Gibbs - who was one of the first to analyze the genetic properties of the 2009 swine flu – believes that scientists accidentally created the H1N1 virus while producing vaccines. And Dr. John Carlo, Dallas Co. Medical Director, "This strain of swine influenza that’s been cultured in a laboratory is something that’s not been seen anywhere actually in the United States and the world, so this is actually a new strain of influenza that’s been identified."(4) Because of this, the 2009 swine flu virus -- which has yet to be detected in any animals -- has a rather suspicious pedigree.
The Propaganda Campaign
Across the mainstream media, reports announce one swine flu death after another (even though ordinary flu kills about 35,000 Americans each year). Upon closer scrutiny of what passes for journalism, the victims have "underlying health problems," or "a common underlying health condition," or "significant medical conditions."
One news headline even blared: "Swine flu mother dies after giving birth, leaving her premature baby fighting for life," and only later, buried deep in the story underneath, did it explain that she had "other medical problems" which included being confined to a wheelchair because of a serious car accident.
Citizens the world over are increasingly skeptical of hyped headlines followed by smaller-print caveats. They are uneasy with the effort to create "doublethink" – a term coined by George Orwell in 1984 and a reference to holding two contradictory ideas in one’s mind simultaneously, paralyzing critical thought.
The media has never been in the habit of reporting the cases of people who, for no known reason, die of the flu. Out of the 35,000 Americans who die each year from flu-related illnesses, some are bound to be relatively young and healthy. It happens. This year, however, their stories are front-page news.
More recently, news reports claim that the H1N1 swine flu can affect people in the lungs and lead to pneumonia. This, however, is what separates the flu from the common cold in the first place; and this is why tens of thousands of elderly people die of flu-related symptoms each year. Fox News even claimed that "this one morphs and mutates and comes back in different ways…," (like all flu viruses). In short, the media now uses the flu’s own ordinary symptoms to fuel fear.
Fortunately, a growing wave of online media challenges the propaganda. Back in 1976, there were no rival voices, and the Center for Disease Control’s manipulative television commercials dominated the airwaves. Fortunately, as a testament to official shamelessness, these videos are now archived and searchable on the Internet under the title of "1976 Swine Flu Propaganda."
Now, like then, the US government’s pandemic policy alternates between the ridiculous and the repugnant. The government’s flu website is revealing. First, the historical section on the 1918 virus is intellectually dishonest, making absolutely no link between the unique conditions of World War I and the flu pandemic; instead, the site propagates the erroneous notion that this virus came out of the blue. (5)
Second, the site announces an absurd American Idol-style video contest: "Create a Video About Preventing or Dealing With the Flu & Be Eligible to Win $2500 Cash!" (Congress has earmarked 8 billion dollars for swine flu prevention and can only offer $2,500 to the proles -- or, rather, to the one prole who, rising above mediocrity, best parrots the Party Line.)
And third, the site encourages the use of Twitter to "stay informed…" There is something mildly disturbing about the US federal government promoting Twitter as a form of resistance to foreign authoritarianism, while, simultaneously, using social networking to further federalize and protect the abuse of power at home.
1976 + 1984 = 2009
In sum, it appears that the 2009 swine flu pandemic will not be 1918. It might be a 1976-style hoax, however, serving profit and power - with a bit of Orwell’s 1984 thrown in for good measure.
Andrew Bosworth, Ph.D.
Author of Biotech Empire (Amazon)
Notes
1. JS Oxford, A Sefton, R Jackson, W Innes, RS Daniels, and NPAS Johnson, “World War I may have allowed the emergence of ‘Spanish’ influenza,” The Lancet/ Infectious Diseases Vol. 2 February 2002.
2. Byerly CR. 2005. Fever of War: The Influenza Epidemic in the U.S. Army during World War I. New York, NY: New York University Press.
3. Ann H. Reid, Thomas G. Fanning, Johan V. Hultin, and Jeffery K. Taubenberger, “Origin and Evolution of the 1918 Spanish Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin Gene, PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Division of Molecular Pathology, Department of Cellular Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC. Communicated by Edwin D. Kilbourne, New York.
4. Paul Joseph Watson, “Medical Director: Swine Flu Was ‘Cultured In A Laboratory,” This strain of swine influenza that’s been cultured in a laboratory is something that’s not been seen anywhere actually in the United States and the world, so this is actually a new strain of influenza that’s been identified. April 26, 2009.
5. http://www.flu.gov/
24 Aug 2009
*****
http://www.legitgov.org/essay_bosworth_swine_flu_hoax_240809.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
