WHO advises Ukraine to destroy dangerous pathogens in 'health labs'.

Psychologists consider denial —the refusal to accept facts in order to protect us from uncomfortable truths, it is true that we have these refusers twisting the truth in order to change or modified public opinion.

The way is done change depending on what the topic at the moment is.

Maybe ATS is become the playground and experimental data base for modified behavior via the use of deniers.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

LMFAO for real.

originally posted by: marg6043
Psychologists consider denial —the refusal to accept facts in order to protect us from uncomfortable truths, it is true that we have these refusers twisting the truth in order to change or modified public opinion.

The way is done change depending on what the topic at the moment is.

Maybe ATS is become the playground and experimental data base for modified behavior via the use of deniers.

Most likely... it would be unwise not to gather experience from a site like this.

Just like hackers are recruited by army and letter companies to handle development of IT security, because if you want to stress test something, you need people who are able to break what is made.
Atleast that's a thing here in Denmark.

The biggest problem with langauge / verbal communication is that there are only so many ways you can divert a question with a non-answer, and we get more sensitive to it.
Along with politicians, in spite of their media training, seem to be completely unable to shed their little tells when communicating something that is scripted.

Atleast I consider it fairly obvious to tell "from the heart truth" apart from "This is what I'm told to say in these words and phrases".

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Then just look underneath it all at who is funding those labs.

Any proof any US labs being funded by something other than the Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction act?

Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction

en.m.wikipedia.org...

In recent years, the CTR program has expanded its mission from securing WMDs at the root source to protecting against WMD "on the move", by enhancing land and maritime border security in the former Soviet Union.

You

These have the same pattern as the Wuhan lab.

Which labs with what mission statements?

You

Fauci and gain of function being illegal here, so they go elsewhere to get away with it. Plenty of evidence for this, and newer and even more revealing things confirming this coming out almost daily.

One. Fauci at the least should be in jail for lying to Congress/ Senate?

Two. Fauci is CDC. Not Pentagon / military. And I don’t think part of the DOD. What military lab has Fauci funded.


Three. What Bio Safety Lab level 4 was Fauci funding in the Ukraine?

Four. What lab in the Ukraine was not complying with audits / inspections / scope as required by the Biological Weapons Convention.

You

They have denied everything and then it comes out true in quite undeniable fashion. But some still deny.

What US funded labs are denying what?

You

Quite a few people should already be serving long prison sentences.

For the open funding of the labs and sites working under the scope of the Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction action? With no evidence of a lab not complying with Biological Weapons Convention?

originally posted by: flice

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: flice

Well. If you are the pentagon. And asked if you as the pentagon are running military bio labs in the Ukrainian, and you are not running military bio labs. I guess the answer is no?

And then add on top for clarification "but the facilities in question are operational for the purpose of preventing violent outbreaks and apparently destroy biochem WMDs".

If Kirby had said that.... the discussion would have ended right then and there. But the in competent idiot didn't answer like that, because none of them knew which story to spin.

What military lab ran by the pentagon is “ preventing violent outbreaks and apparently destroy biochem WMDs"


If the labs are not under the DOD, what would the pentagon know about civilian ran threat reduction labs? And why would they speak for them?

It’s like asking the pentagon if they have IRS offices in the Ukraine.

There is not an acceptable explanation if they are making the claim that:

1. It has taken them 20+ years to safely shut down and secure old Russian bio labs without making any progress.
2. That research left from old Russian labs falling into Russian hands would be extremely dangerous.

a reply to: Halfswede

Sigh.

When was chlordane production stopped in the USA? But some of the old chlordane sites are still monitored, controlled. With surveillance of the Great Lakes still finding detectable levels of chlordane in the fish.

How much more important do you think monitoring of the old nuclear, chemical, biological sites are?

This appears interesting……

www.womensystems.com...

Is the real crime the Biden Administration is trying to cover up involving Biolabs the exorbitant amount of money they made in these ventures?
We reported this morning that Hunter Biden is connected to the firms involved in the creation of Biolabs in Ukraine. Hunter’s firm Rosemont Seneca funded much of what firm Metabiota was doing for years.

We also located a number of documents from the Wayback Machine (meaning they have been since deleted off the Internet) that show the Department of Defense investing in the creation of Biolabs in Ukraine with the help of firm Black & Veatch. This firm is connected to Metabiota.

Is there anything questionable that the Biden were not involved in?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Halfswede

Sigh.

When was chlordane production stopped in the USA? But some of the old chlordane sites are still monitored, controlled. With surveillance of the Great Lakes still finding detectable levels of chlordane in the fish.

How much more important do you think monitoring of the old nuclear, chemical, biological sites are?

Then how could they be quickly destroyed as the WHO is recommending? You can't have it both ways.

Ukraine has four Biosafety Level-3 facilities, one of which, the Ukrainian I. I. Mechnikov Anti-Plague Research Institute in Odesa, was described in a 2010 media article as a center capable of conducting research on “dangerous pathogens used by bioterrorists” such as “anthrax, tularemia and Q fever as well as other dangerous pathogens.”

The following figure lists the four Biosafety Level-3 facilities in Ukraine, their locations, size and activities, which are primarily for the detection and identification of dangerous pathogens.

As one who worked in a Biosafety Level-3 facility at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Maryland, I can attest that there are distinct differences in methodologies between detection and identification of pathogens or research related to medical defenses for such pathogens and bioweapon development.
The presence of dangerous pathogens in laboratories or the fact that experiments are being conducted with them are not necessarily violations of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, which allows defensive research.

Yes, the U.S. government has been deceptive and incompetent in addressing the questions related to the Ukraine bio lab controversy.

Nevertheless, at present, no scientific evidence exists directly demonstrating bioweapon development by U.S.-funded research laboratories in Ukraine.

[ussanews.com...[/url]

Here you go; there is no evidence proving the development of bioweapons; case closed. We can all stick our heads back in the sand now and go back to our favorite mind-numbing sitcom.

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Halfswede

Sigh.

When was chlordane production stopped in the USA? But some of the old chlordane sites are still monitored, controlled. With surveillance of the Great Lakes still finding detectable levels of chlordane in the fish.

How much more important do you think monitoring of the old nuclear, chemical, biological sites are?

Then how could they be quickly destroyed as the WHO is recommending? You can't have it both ways.

You can destroy the lab samples. Has nothing to do with ground / water contamination.

Why are highly contagious diseases kept in labs?

health.howstuffworks.com...

Researchers also keep samples of contagious disease for surveillance. The World Health Organization (WHO) works internationally to keep tabs on diseases affecting public health. This global surveillance system, through which participating countries report communicable diseases, allows WHO to identify emerging diseases or learn of new outbreaks of existing diseases. This allows the control mode to go into effect that much faster.

a reply to: neutronflux

Explain then to me how

“ preventing violent outbreaks and apparently destroy biochem WMDs"

can be safely done in a facility that does not has the means to handle these. The narrative is falling apart logically, all the walls from this cardbox house of lies are flipping down.

Flice is 100% correct, WHY deny if they had the means to just come clean and say "yes, but actually it's a bit different..." first and foremost? Don't you see the discrepancies stacking up with this?

1) There are no labs at all.
A: There are, see your own .gov websites that are purged from the info (archive.org is your friend)

2) There are labs but they belonged to soviets, we just clean up (since 30 years).
A: What are you cleaning up there for 30 years?

3) WMDs and stuff.
A: So the labs are indeed capable of handling them? Explain then why the recent one is not even 10 years old?

4) These are not WMD capable labs, just research.
A: You told us you also destroy WMDs there from soviet area, how can you do that in low safety labs?


Yeah, how can you clean up bio/chem WMD's if you do not have the means to handle them? If that is given, it does not take a lot more to actually work on them.

Explain.




5) Soviet WMDs!!!
6) Soviet WMDs!!!
7) Soviet WMDs!!!
8) Soviet WMDs!!!
9) Soviet WMDs!!!
10) Soviet WMDs!!!

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

You

can be safely done in a facility that does not has the means to handle these

You mean by having the means to monitor the environment. Then start the ball rolling. To implement controls, safeguards, and to bring in teams that can.


I work in large open metal structures. We use a lightning tracker that can’t stop lighting. But it sure gives us enough warning to clear the structure to prevent injury from being hit by lightning.

When I was in the army reserve. We had these little testing kits for chemical/bio agents we were trained to use for going into areas. They couldn’t stop the chemical/ bio attack. Or clean up the contamination. But knowing to don our gas Masks and MOPP suits, and not drink the local water would prevent tactical disaster. And then give us a choice if we needed to evacuate the area.

Your argument is kind of weak. And ignores a majorly of small cities, towns, villages, outlaying areas have to rely on detection and having to bring in teams and equipment if an actual outbreak occurs.

a reply to: neutronflux

No. You either destroy biologic and chemical WMDs or not. If you do, you have to have the means to handle them. It's basic 1+1=2 logic that escapes you here.

US government says they are destroying WMD material from soviet times in the Ukraine, yet tell us in the same breath the labs are not suitable.

Explain the discrepancy. I am not interested in your lightning detector story. Explain how WMD class bio and or chemicals can be destroyed in a lab that is not built and certified for it.

Were you handling lightning with your detector? No, so your example is worthless

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

You

either destroy biologic and chemical WMDs or not. If you do,

How do you do that if it’s leached deep under ground in ground water or escapes and is in the fish / animal population.

Back to the insecticide chlordane? How long have the chlordane facilities and sites been closed. Since the 80’s. And there is still detectable levels of chlordane in the fish of the great lakes. I hope there isn’t. But who knows what unfounded contamination/ buried stock piles might be an environmental time bomb.

The deadly germ warfare island abandoned by the Soviets

www.bbc.com...

During the Cold War, Vozrozhdeniya Island was a top-secret testing ground for deadly Soviet super-pathogens. Despite over two decades of abandonment, their legacy lives on.

On the Kazakh-Uzbek border, surrounded by miles of toxic desert, lies an island. Or at least, something that used to be an island.

Vozrozhdeniya was once home to a vibrant fishing village fringed by turquoise lagoons, back when the Aral Sea was the fourth-largest in the world and abundant with fish.

But after years of abuse by the Soviets, the waters have receded and the sea has turned to dust; the rivers that fed it were diverted to irrigate cotton fields. Today, a layer of salty sand, riddled with carcinogenic pesticides, is all that remains of the ancient oasis.

This is a place where the mercury regularly hits 60C (140F) in the sandy soil, and where the only signs of life are the skeletons of desiccated trees and camels shading under giant, stranded boats.

Now Vozrozhdeniya has swallowed up so much of the sea that it’s swelled to 10 times its original size, and is connected to the mainland by a peninsula. But it is thanks to another Soviet project that it is one of the deadliest places on the planet.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

www.bbc.com...

But that’s not quite the end of the story. Half a century of open-air testing has left the entire island contaminated – not just at the test site, but all over. “Oh, there will still be anthrax there, no problem,” says Les Baillie, an international expert on anthrax from Cardiff University. He spent a decade working at the UK’s former bioweapons research facility, Porton Down.

That’s not to mention the burial pits of infected animals, with up to a hundred corpses in each, or the unmarked grave of a woman who died while handling an infectious agent some decades ago. “Even when you bury an animal, you have to bury it a good couple of metres down. If the area floods the spores can float back up and earthworms in the soil can move it around,” he says.

a reply to: neutronflux
As I thought, distractions again.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

You

am not interested in your lightning detector story. Explain how WMD class bio and or chemicals can be destroyed in a lab that is not built and certified for it.

You mean the libraries of naturally occurring pathogens like anthrax? That can be misused?

Evidently it doesn’t even need a lab…

More recently, a 12-year-old-boy died after being overcome by anthrax that had been lurking in the far north of Russia. The outbreak hospitalised 72 people from the nomadic Nenets tribe, including 41 children, and thousands of reindeer perished. It’s thought to have started when a heatwave thawed the carcass of a reindeer that was at least 75 years old.

As you might expect, the Soviets’ efforts at Vozrozhdeniya weren’t nearly enough. Years after the USSR’s collapse, in the wake of attacks in Tokyo and revelations about an extensive bioweapons programme in Iraq, fears were mounting about the prospect of terrorists or rogue governments getting their hands on any weaponised pathogens. So the US government sent teams of specialists to do some tests.

The precise location of the anthrax cache was never disclosed, but as it turns out this wasn’t a problem. The pits were so enormous, they were clearly visible in photos taken from space. Viable spores were found in several soil samples, and the US pledged $6m (£4.6m) for a project to clean the place up.

This involved a deep trench, dug next to the pits, some plastic lining and thousands of kilograms of powerful powdered bleach. All the team had to do was move several tonnes of contaminated soil into the trench – in 50C (122F) heat, while wearing full protective suits. In all, 100 local workers were hired and the project took four months to complete.

www.bbc.com...

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I guess for the small samples the labs would have, use disinfectant. The items they would have on hand anyway to prevent contamination and treat “spills”.

In the military, there are certified methods for destroying classified material. That goes out the window in the face being captured by hostile forces, then any means can be used.

Probably the same to keep samples of pathogens from falling into hostile forces hands.

originally posted by: Halfswede
There is not an acceptable explanation if they are making the claim that:

1. It has taken them 20+ years to safely shut down and secure old Russian bio labs without making any progress.
2. That research left from old Russian labs falling into Russian hands would be extremely dangerous.

The 21 million from 2009 to 2015 was to modernize those older USSR labs and repurpose them to what they do today, which is not bio-weapons.