US Law Allows Testing BioChem Agents On Civilians

This is unbelievable. Our stupid representatives in D.C. have passed a law in NOV. 18, 1997 that would allow citizens to be testing subjects. It sounds like Chem-trail.

chemtruth.ning.com...

PUBLIC LAW 105—85—NOV. 18, 1997: USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS

SEC. 1078. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR TESTING OF CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL AGENTS.

(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)

(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN


Good thread, interesting to see what the usual suspects will have to say about this.

No doubt that chemtrails are still just contrails & that this law means they could have legally be chemming the whole population since 1997, but they arent because 'that would be wrong' trololololol.

Since when did right and wrong affect the actions of the master to his slaves.

reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN


Oh dear...

Speaking if deception, why does your source leave this out?

(f) REPORT AND CERTIFICATION.—Section 1703(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (50 U.S.C. 1523(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘‘(9) A description of any program involving the testing of biological or chemical agents on human subjects that was carried out by the Department of Defense during the period covered by the report, together with—

‘‘(A) a detailed justification for the testing;
‘‘(B) a detailed explanation of the purposes of the testing;
‘‘(C) a description of each chemical or biological agent tested; and
‘‘(D) the Secretary’s certification that informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.’’.

(g) REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED PROVISION OF LAW.—Section 808 of the Department of Defense Appropriation Authorization Act, 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1520), is repealed.

Why didn't you bother to go check the paper before posting it?

I have to disagree with the reasoning in this article. I believe there is a difference between acquiescence and informed consent.
Wikipedia

In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given. Impairments to reasoning and judgment which may make it impossible for someone to give informed consent include such factors as basic intellectual or emotional immaturity, high levels of stress such as PTSD or as severe mental retardation, severe mental illness, intoxication, severe sleep deprivation, Alzheimer's disease, or being in a coma.

Spraying 'chemtrails' over any populated area would affect children and/or people with medical conditions unable to give informed consent. I think this is simply a fear-mongering article trying to prove that spraying chemicals on the population is legal.

It is not legal. If the government is doing this it is not a legal action. I know they have done this in the past but I don't think they'd get away with it these days.

Hmm...

I think that you are wrong about consent.

It clearly states there must be informed consent before the testing takes place.

Surely this would mean that you must be informed the testing is taking place and give consent to it. Making a law stating that testing may be done if consent is given, is not informing that testing is being done and seeking consent.

Just because a law is made that ALLOWS something to be done, doesn't mean you have been in formed it IS being done and you have consented. There is a jump in logic half way through your post, and the jump is that if you are informed something is legal if you are informed it is being done, it is then legal to do it without informing you it is being done, thats a nonsensical paradox. (phew what a sentence sorry)


And anyway if you believe there are a myriad of secret jets criss crossing the sky performing biological experiments on you sponsored by the government, surely you don't believe they give a toss if it is legal or not

reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN


Chad summed up what was wrong with this source, but I would go further and ask why you are relying on a website called 'chemtruth'? They must have an agenda if they want the truth on a subject for which absolutely no evidence exists, hence why they have to find sources that might relate and force fit them into their definition of 'chemstuff''.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Let me introduce you to Oakville Washington in August 1994:

Originally posted by pianopraze

Let me introduce you to Oakville Washington in August 1994:

Let me introduce you to history:

www.gutenberg.org...

Nevertheless, the Monthly Weather Review, May, 1877, reports a golden-yellow fall, of Feb. 27, 1877, at Peckloh, Germany, in which four kinds of organisms, not pollen, were the coloring matter. There were minute things shaped like arrows, coffee beans, horns, and disks.

They may have been symbols. They may have been objective hieroglyphics—

Mere passing fancy—let it go—

In the Annales de Chimie, 85-288, there is a list of rains said to have contained sulphur. I have thirty or forty other notes. I'll not use one of them. I'll admit that every one of them is upon a fall of pollen. I said, to begin with, that our methods would be the methods of theologians and scientists, and they always begin with an appearance of liberality. I grant thirty or forty points to start with. I'm as liberal as any of them—or that my liberality won't cost me anything—the enormousness of the data that we shall have.

Or just to look over a typical instance of this dogma, and the way it works out:

In the American Journal of Science, 1-42-196, we are told of a yellow substance that fell by the bucketful upon a vessel, one "windless" night in June, in Pictou Harbor, Nova Scotia. The writer analyzed the substance, and it was found to "give off nitrogen and ammonia and an animal odor."

The full text contains MANY examples of unusual rains and other things falling out of the sky. All of which occurred before the first contrail crossed the sky.

Well the M.O.D. in the UK were testing chemical weapons on service 'volunteers' for years. So it wouldn't surprise me if this day and age the US just changed the goal posts.

Theres also a big market in volunteer drug testing too, so nothing new.

reply to post by EnigmaAgent



Yes in the UK around 18,276 servicemen were used in the tests. In the tests chemical warfare agents such as sarin, lewisite and sulphur mustar, were used.

Who was president in 1997? Clinton? they knew for sure...so all these good things i hear people saying about bill clinton ii dont think so! dosnt suprise me, our own governemnt testing chemical s on us..and to think, thier the ones running the economym, telling us everything is ok and all a government that poisons its own citizens,d egrading the quality of life..cant trust em.

reply to post by Uncinus


Let me introduce you to history, Elmer Allen:

No consent, it killed him. His doctor diagnosed him as insane while at the same time giving the radiation test results to the U.S. government. U.S. Government admitted and apologized after he was dead.

Government Evil. I think that was already established.

So why chemtrails, which would spray everyone including the elite? Isn't that rather stupid of them?

reply to post by Uncinus


Population control.

The "elites" have no fear because they can limit their exposure.

Our "science tsar" Holdren has long and publicly stated he's for population reduction.
In this book "Ecoscience" in 1977 which he co-authored he suggests a "planetary regime" to force population control. Additionally he suggests:

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."

Our science tsar Holdren along with many globalist buddies want to kill off most of the population of the earth:

“…The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” – Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.130-131

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” - Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund – quoted in “Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?,” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December ’95

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner – CNN founder and UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June ’96

“The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.” – Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller foundation

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” – Jacques Cousteau

There are many, many more examples.

They generally state either they view man a virus to be killed off or strictly controlled. They are trying to wipe out billions any way they can. I'm not sure how geo-engineering fits in... if it makes it so only GMO crops can grow... or brings down viruses and bacteria floating in the upper atmosphere, or leads to "natural" disasters... even the geo-enigineers themselves say this is not safe and should not be done.

If they have started it... I believe they think they can bring about more deaths through it. They have written in stone they want to reduce our population by 95 percent. These sickophants have no problem killing off billions to achieve their publicly stated goals. They publicly admit it in writing and speach.

I am almost certain GMO's are being used as a mass sterrelant, they were developed within a few years of the above published articles calling for a mass sterrelant in the food supply.

These "elites" can limit their exposure because they control when and where. They already admittedly avoid eating GMO's there are lots of threads here on ATS documenting. When you can control your exposure, you have no fears of being contaminated. Small doses probably have little effect, it is the accumulation that is worrying.

I'm not sure which insanity disturbs me the most... their admitting it, or people ignoring/denying/defending it.

reply to post by pianopraze


That does not sound very plausible.

ETA - Seems like a bunch of quote taken out of context. Or by known idiots like Prince Philip.

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Who was president in 1997? Clinton? they knew for sure...so all these good things i hear people saying about bill clinton ii dont think so! dosnt suprise me, our own governemnt testing chemical s on us..and to think, thier the ones running the economym, telling us everything is ok and all a government that poisons its own citizens,d egrading the quality of life..cant trust em.

Wrong, it was written in 1997, the tests were in the 50s and 60s. Read it again.

Date: May 14, 1997
Contacts: Dan Quinn, Media Relations Associate
national-academies.org

A series of secret tests conducted by the U.S. Army in the 1950s and 1960s did not expose residents of the United States and Canada to chemical levels considered harmful, according to a new report* from a committee of the National Research Council.

Originally posted by muons200
Well it has been done before, without telling people..

Right, but did you miss this part? I have a feeling you read the first sentence and decided it was 'proof'.

Originally posted by muons200
A series of secret tests conducted by the U.S. Army in the 1950s and 1960s did not expose residents of the United States and Canada to chemical levels considered harmful, according to a new report* from a committee of the National Research Council.

""Right, but did you miss this part? I have a feeling you read the first sentence and decided it was 'proof'""

Not sure if this was in responce to my post, but here goes.

No i did not just read the first line and decided this was proof. A few years ago i studied and read up on a lot of worldwide testing. This included testing dispersal methods on civilian citys in peacetime. To evaluate future enemy attack or accidental release. Learning about factors such as wind patterns, air water density, chemical reactions in sunlight, how chemicals act in a real enviroment in relation to a lab enviroment. Ect ect.

Also a lot of the "medical documentation" has been mislaid or lost by the agencies conducting the tests. There are many incidental reports showing a link to the testing and later medical complications.

Also studied documents and reports in relation to...

'Exercise Green Goblin II': Multi-agency response to a major incident that involved a chemical release (2006), 'Exercise Phoenix': Recovery after influenza pandemic (2007), 'Exercise solent sunshine': Detonation of a Radiological Dispersion Device (2008).

Spent weeks going over manuals with exciting names like....


Comparison of Processes and Procedures for Deriving Exposure Criteria for the Protection of Human Health: Chemicals, Ionising Radiation and Non-ionising Radiation

Guidance for the Initial Investigation and Management of Outbreaks and Incidents of Unusual Illnesses

Reading manuals about

Aerobiology and Air Sampling
The Biosafety uniy
Medical Emergency Response Incident Team

And many more, im sure the person who wrote mosts of these was trying to give me a stroke....

Also reading studies and reports about multiple agency exercises..

Exercise Black Gold
Business continuity resulting from fuel supply disruption 14 April 2010 East of England

Exercise Child’s Play
E coli outbreak with hospitals under pressure 12 May 2010 North West

Exercise Milo
Field exercise of chemical incident at international sporting event 29 June 2010 London

Exercise Blue Polaris
Radiation dispersal devices, 22 September 2010

Exercise Eagle Owl
Hospital fire and evacuation, 5 October 2010

Exercise Short Sermon
Nuclear Accident Response, 12 October 2010

Exercise Coriolis
Preparation for winter pressures, 14 October 2010

Exercise Nightingale
Gas explosion in a shopping centre, 19 January 2011

Exercise Brighton Belle
Mass casualty incident involving children, 23 February 2011

Exercise Tom Thumb
White powder incident, 24 March 2011

Exercise Aquarius
Chemical incident and decontamination, 29 –31 March 2011


Many of these and other exercises, some being " table top" exercises. Some used data collected in the experiments in the cold war. Some of the cold war tests are being questioned as there is several pointers. Showing a higher risk/cases of cancers and lung problems, mental health issues. In the tested areas than in adjacent areas.

not counting the rate of cancers and deaths in the soldiers who were tested on at Porton Down, in relation to other serving soldiers. In this case the MOD has paid compensation but does not claim liability.

Sorry for the long post, but in my job i see a lot of these reports and i spend time and a lot of reading and cross referencing before i reach even an initial conclusion. Because yes a lot of the things i see are just computer studies and small tests, but could save lives in a future event.

Thankyou.

Disclamer.....

no confidential or restricted information or reports used in this reply.