

Source: www.globalresearch.ca

let me begin with the following:  I don’t know the answer to this question.  


There are more parallels to science, medicine and history than we typically imagine.  The discovery and documentation of the use of African toxins like Curare first came to light in the medical journals in the mid-1800s.  They were rediscovered several times by scientists who accompanied the British Explorers in the 1870s to 1890s.  Each scientist then envisioned them for use as chemical weapons.     


Chemical weapons didn’t become an official venture of the United States, by way of engineering schools (Carnegie) and chemical industries  (no naming companies here), until the 1910s or 1920s (Carnegie’s American Chemical Warfare Team, 1917).   


The invention of a highly selective and toxic neurochemical turned chemical warfare into the industry we related it to today. The very deadly neurotoxin, sarin, first came to market as an agricultural pesticide.  Its inventor, Dr. Gerhard Schrader, of Bayer AG, first invented the pesticide E 605 (parathion) (http://www.pinterest.com/pin/568790627909181638/&nbsp;).      


So, does Ebola represent one of several examples of the next generation or period in weaponry research?  I say, ‘Yes AND No.’   


There are two major ways to "interpret" Ebola based on biology and chemistry.     


A traditional historic epidemiology theory might state that it was a natural organism, that for some reason evolved into the vicious and deadly form it has become since the mid 1970s.


The conspiracists’ theory states that it was a by product of some scientific lab in Africa, as early as the 1970s, but more likely an organism that was developed over time into the highly deadly version infecting us now.


One argument in favor of the conspiracists’ theory is the fact that it seems against the laws of nature for an organism to evolve into a very deadly form.  The reason here is that it requires a certain amount of time, alive in the human body, and it it becomes superdeadly, the body dies and could in turn work against the ability of the organism to find new victims.  Of course, countering this theory is the notion that the ebolavirus benefits spatially, temporally, and genetically, by undergoing rapid reproduction and producing a  template upon which it can thrive and be picked up for redistribution by other animals that thrive on dead flesh.   


In favor of the traditional natural ecology, historical epidemiological theory is the notion that the organism evolved naturally, and naturally produced its current, more vicious form as well.


Circumstantial and even debatable evidence which I put out there for the latter are the two postings on early Ebola like diseases found in early 1800s disease maps and writings.  Each of these two initial "proofs" have separate details about the "River Fever" they are related to, each on an Ebola related River–the Congo and the Niger.  What is convincing at the researcher’s end is that discovering these two cases did not require extensive searching–it wasn’t a case in which dozens to hundreds of examples had to be evaluated before a match for Ebola could be located.  


Instead, this evidence came from the 1827 German Disease Topography and Climate map by Friedrich Schnurrer.  It was immediate apparent that the Congo River disease was like none other described on this map, in both its taxonomic nomenclature (a very common tool for naming everything in nature then, see Erasmus Darwin) and the symptomatology.


One possible argument is that, naturally, the ebolavirus was developed in a bioweapons lab in Africa, through natural reproductive means more than through genetic manipulation methods.  The goal was then to test each version that came out, striving to find the most deadly organism.  [In my typical way, I cover this history of biological warfare and bioterrorism extensively at    http://www.pinterest.com/altonenb/bioterrorism/ ]  


As noted earlier, on another posting, 1982-4 marks the transition from evaluating AT-CG ratios to nucleic acid sequencing in molecular biology.  Some of the first genetically modified organisms became genetically engineered products around 1984-5 (Agrobacterium tumefaciens, and frost-free bacteria); the industrialization of bioengineering a product was developed in the late 1980s by a Japanese producer of amino acids, for sale as supplements (this is what caused the tryptophan tragedy).


The natural evolution of Ebola was the primary reason for its persistence up until the molecular genetics period in modern science.  The human evolution of Ebola, induced by genetic modification and/or by simple selective breeding and differentiation, does fit into the time sequence given in this article for post 1987 events.  This note, in addition to the genetically engineered, patented Ebola in possession of the CDC for pharmaceutical manufacturing, suggests that there is now a double edged sword related to everything we do in pharmacogenetics.  


"Survival of the fittest" is being replaced by "Survival of the Best", at least "the best" based on certain cultural definitions.




Two Scientists Say Ebola Originated In US Bio-warfare Lab








See on Scoop.itGlobal∑os® (GlobalEOS)