Is this what they're worried about?

leela

Senior Member
Messages
3,290
showed 99% identity to a synthetic retrovirus which was engineered in the 1980s.
Yes, I've wondered for some time too; and more specifically can anyone answer FOR WHAT PURPOSE such a thing was engineered?
I just can't get my head around that.
 

Grape Funk

Senior Member
Messages
113
Location
USA
Yes, I've wondered for some time too; and more specifically can anyone answer FOR WHAT PURPOSE such a thing was engineered?
I just can't get my head around that.

And it just so happens outbreaks occur with unknown etiology. hhhmmmm
 

insearchof

Senior Member
Messages
598
Yes, I've wondered for some time too; and more specifically can anyone answer FOR WHAT PURPOSE such a thing was engineered?

Human gene therapy/to transport drugs to certain sites in the body. I believe they used it in the boy in the plastic bubble illness - which had success but eventuated in these individuals getting cancer.
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
I believe they were attmepting to use retorviruses to treat genetic illnesses liek cystic fibrosis by altering flawed genes in the patients? the CF stuff didn't work I know that much, but nto for sure if retroviral agents were used.

You also have very unethical or just plain damn stupid/careless work being done in corporate and military labs for decades.
One of the things that has long muddied the HIV issue is the fact the US military was investigating bioweapons specifically targetting the immune system...but we don't know many details of that, ie did they give up on it as they lacked understanding of retrovirsues and lack of tech at the time?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/experiment.htm
1969 Dr. Robert MacMahan of the Department of Defense requests from congress $10 million to develop, within 5 to 10 years, a synthetic biological agent to which no natural immunity exists.

1970 Funding for the synthetic biological agent is obtained under H.R. 15090. The project, under the supervision of the CIA, is carried out by the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, the army's top secret biological weapons facility. Speculation is raised that molecular biology techniques are used to produce AIDS-like retroviruses.

1970 United States intensifies its development of "ethnic weapons" (Military Review, Nov., 1970), designed to selectively target and eliminate specific ethnic groups who are susceptible due to genetic differences and variations in DNA.

1975 The virus section of Fort Detrick's Center for Biological Warfare Research is renamed the Fredrick Cancer Research Facilities and placed under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) . It is here that a special virus cancer program is initiated by the U.S. Navy, purportedly to develop cancer-causing viruses. It is also here that retrovirologists isolate a virus to which no immunity exists. It is later named HTLV (Human T-cell Leukemia Virus

And the corporate world is riddled with stupid crap because any scare affects share prices so gets SQUASHED, hard, even if it means their safety practices suck. For example see the recent foot and mouth outbreak in England tracked back to a lab dealing with it.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826593.500-leaky-disease-labs-get-off-scotfree.html

and, since it's a big world with much interconnectivity and incredible complexity, such pathogens can come about by pure chance, and since they are so very hard to spot...

USA's *massive* increase in "biodefence labs" for exmaple, iirc they have increased number of labs/research about 12 fold? is a serious threat to biological safety and NATO *allies* have complained it's WAY beyond that required for defence or safety
ie get too many accidents are inevitable!
http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/worries-about-safety-us-biodefense-labs
http://www.kansas.com/2010/11/16/1590845/array0xc0e3330.html

Report: Planned biodefense lab carries risks
32 Comments
BY david klepper
Eagle Topeka bureau
TOPEKA — A new report warns that without strong precautions, a planned biodefense lab in Manhattan could accidentally release pathogens like foot-and-mouth disease — the very scourge it's designed to fight.

There's at least a 70 percent chance that the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility will accidentally release foot-and-mouth and cause an outbreak at some point within a 50-year span, according to findings released Monday by the National Research Council.

Foot-and-mouth is harmless to humans but devastating to cattle and other livestock. Such an outbreak would cause between $9 billion and $50 billion in economic losses, the council's report predicted.

Defenders of the federal project criticized the National Research Council review, saying it failed to consider the many security precautions being developed to limit the risk of pathogen release when the lab opens, perhaps as early as 2017.

Manhattan prevailed over sites in several other states to win the $450 million federal lab, known as NBAF. Researchers at the lab will study some of the world's worst animal germs — some of which are also dangerous to people — to safeguard the nation's food supply against natural and terrorist threats.

Congress last year blocked funds for NBAF's construction, however, until federal authorities and the NRC could respond to safety concerns. A 2008 government study questioned the wisdom of studying animal diseases anywhere on the U.S. mainland; the work now is done in an aging facility on Plum Island off the New York coast.

Monday's report — requested by Congress — isn't likely to put those questions to rest, and it could delay the project further if Congress decides to take another look.

"It is up to policymakers to decide whether the risks are acceptable," said Professor Ronald Atlas, a professor of biology and public health at the University of Louisville who led the National Research Council review.

The biodefense lab is still in the design stage. Its supporters in Manhattan, Topeka and Washington were quick to defend the project's safety precautions.

They noted that the NRC failed to consider most of the safeguards already planned for the lab. But they agreed that the findings could still help to make the lab even safer.

"The more information that is provided — especially at this early stage — the better," said Gov. Mark Parkinson.

Details of the review

Congress asked the National Research Council to review an earlier risk assessment conducted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The NRC is an independent, nonprofit organization affiliated with the National Academies of Science. It often conducts research on behalf of the government.

The researchers found "several major shortcomings" in the Homeland Security review:

* Failure to account for the risk associated with animal pen cleaning. The report noted that humans exposed to contaminated animal waste or bedding could themselves spread disease.

* Little mention of the nearby Kansas State University campus and specifically the football stadium, whose spectators could spread any escaped pathogen.

* No recommendation for backup air filters in laboratories.

* A failure to present NBAF's strategies for detecting a pathogen release and stopping one once it has occurred.

The NRC also highlighted Manhattan's location in the heart of U.S. cattle country.

"Roughly 9.5 percent of the U.S. cattle inventory lies within a 200-mile radius of the facility," the report noted. "Given that the disease (foot-and-mouth) is highly contagious and that the chance of its escape is not zero, rigorous and robust regional and national mitigation strategies are needed... before the facility opens."



Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2010/11/16/1590845/array0xc0e3330.html#ixzz1FjuQWFZX
 
Back