CDC Now Says Ebola Droplets Can Spread Six Feet, Not Three


CDC changes facts yet again as public backlash intensifies

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released a new document that doubles the previous length in which Ebola droplets can spread through sneezing and coughing.

Posted to the Ebola information section of the CDC’s website, the new document states that a person within 6 feet of an Ebola victim may potentially become infected.

“A person might also get infected by touching a surface or object that has germs on it and then touching their eyes, mouth or nose,” the document states. “Droplets generally travel shorter distances, less than about 6 feet from a source patient.”

A previous document, which was later pulled down from the CDC website without explanation, argued that droplets could only spread 3 feet, a claim the CDC originally worked to deny altogether.

“Droplets travel short distances, less than 3 feet (1 meter) from one person to another,” the document claimed.


Despite spending the last several months working to convince the public that such transfers were impossible, A CDC advisory from early last August entitled Interim Guidance about Ebola Virus Infection for Airline Flight Crews, Cleaning Personnel, and Cargo Personnel clearly showed that the agency was in fact aware of the potential danger posed by airborne droplets.

Airline workers were asked to not only wear surgical masks in order “to reduce the number of droplets expelled into the air by talking, sneezing, or coughing,” but also told to “not use compressed air, which might spread infectious material through the air,” when cleaning an airplane.

Even with documentation pointing out the danger, the CDC continued to deny the possibility of the spread of Ebola through droplets at an October 7 press conference.

“Ebola spreads by direct contact with someone who is sick or with the body fluids of someone who is sick or died from it,” CDC Director Tom Frieden claimed at the time. “We do not see airborne transmission in the outbreak in Africa. We don’t see it elsewhere in what we’ve seen so far.”

In reality, as noted by Washington’s Blog, engineers at MIT have shown that sneezes can travel up to 20 feet, more than 200 times farther than previously believed.

The CDC’s constant flip-flopping on important facts and refusal to implement proper guidelines has caused a massive backlash among the American public, with only 37 percent believing the agency has done an “excellent or good job” in major polls.


Disorderly Reset Coming-Dollar Goes To Zero

By Greg Hunter

economic reset

Wealth preservation expert Egon von Greyerz is not bullish on the U.S. dollar.  Greyerz explains, “More and more countries are trying to go away from the dollar, and I think the days of the dollar are counted.  I think the dollar is going to start falling rapidly in coming months and years.  Of course, it already has fallen dramatically in the last few decades, but that will now accelerate.  It will go down to its intrinsic value which is zero, which most currencies do over their lifetime. Of course, we have the movements in Russia and China with alternative currencies for commodities like oil, etc.  There will be a very disorderly reset with currencies falling.  They can’t all fall at the same time, but they will fall dramatically, and gold will, of course, reflect that.  The stock markets are in a bubble, and they will also fall.  I think the secular bull market we have seen is finished.  Now, we are going to see a very long bear market.  Of course, the biggest bubble of them all, where governments do all they can to keep the bubble going, is the bond market.  We have more debt than ever and interest rates at zero.  That just doesn’t add up.”  Greyerz goes on to say, “You can’t have governments borrow more than ever and have interest rates at zero.  You can only do that temporarily because you have governments printing money and artificially holding interest rates down.  That will not last either.  So, the reset will be dramatic.  It won’t happen overnight, but there will be events that trigger short term pitfalls, but this is a long term thing.”

Greyerz also predicts, “There will be one event after another, and instead of all the good news we have seen . . . now, we will see just bad news coming out.  Sadly, we are just at the end of a major era.”

Greyerz is predicting the end of the U.S. dollar era, and you don’t need a total abandonment for the dollar to crash globally.  Greyerz says, “In any market, you don’t need big sellers to change the price dramatically.  It is always the marginal buying and selling that can make a dramatic difference. . . . If there are sellers and no buyers, that market will collapse.”

Printing money to support the stock market and the bond market will work for a while, but Greyerz warns, “The ammunition that they have will, of course, be so devalued that nobody will want it.  So, any support they try to muster in the future will have no effect.  This is why markets are going to be in a terrible state in the next few years.  It will be all the bubbles that have been created over a very long period.”

On the Swedish gold referendum coming at the end of November, where the Swiss will vote for gold backing to their currency, Greyerz says, “Let’s first say that the government is against it.  So, they are in the “No” camp and so is the Swiss National Bank.  They are not supposed to campaign officially in these kinds of referendums, but they still are making clear statements that it is dangerous for the Swiss National Bank to lose its powers to . . .  manipulate the market.  So, the “No” camp are afraid they will lose the power to print money, and manipulation of markets is going to be taken away from the Swiss National Bank.”  Greyerz goes on to say, “It’s too early to call it, but I would say we stand a very good chance.  I am firmly in the “Yes” camp, and I am a great believer in this fight for sound money.”

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Egon von Greyerz, Founder of Matterhorn Asset Management.

Via USA Watchdog

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Removed Information On Coughing and Sneezing From Ebola Q&A

Global Research
By Arthur Delaney via The Huffington Post


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has quietly removed some Ebola information from its website. The changes follow claims from news outlets and conservative blogs that the agency hasn’t been forthcoming about how the virus spreads, but it was not clear on Thursday afternoon whether the removal was related to the reports.

The New York Post reported Tuesday that the agency “admitted” Ebola can be contracted through casual contact with a doorknob, seemingly contrary to the CDC’s insistence that Ebola is only transmissible through direct contact with bodily fluids from a person sick with the disease. The Post cited a page on the CDC’s website that said Ebola spreads through droplets that can travel short distances when a sick person coughs or sneezes.

Meryl Nass, an internal medicine physician in Ellsworth, Maine, first highlighted the page on her own blog over the weekend.

The page was a PDF document that explained the difference between infections spread through the air or by droplets. The PDF had been taken down as of Thursday afternoon, with this message in its place: “The What’s the difference between infections spread through air or by droplets? Fact sheet is being updated and is currently unavailable. Please visit for up-to-date information on Ebola.”

An earlier version of the page is still available in Google’s cache. It said that while Ebola is not “airborne” like chickenpox or tuberculosis, it can travel a few feet in the air inside droplets emitted when someone coughs or sneezes.

“A person might also get infected by touching a surface or object that has germs on it and then touching their mouth or nose,” the document said.

The CDC has also changed an Ebola Q&A, deleting the below question about coughing and sneezing (which are not typical Ebola symptoms):

Can Ebola spread by coughing? By sneezing?

Unlike respiratory illnesses like measles or chickenpox, which can be transmitted by virus particles that remain suspended in the air after an infected person coughs or sneezes, Ebola is transmitted by direct contact with body fluids of a person who has symptoms of Ebola disease. Although coughing and sneezing are not common symptoms of Ebola, if a symptomatic patient with Ebola coughs or sneezes on someone, and saliva or mucus come into contact with that person’s eyes, nose or mouth, these fluids may transmit the disease.

The version of the Q&A still online notes that Ebola can survive on doorknobs for several hours. The removed question is available in Google’s cache from Oct. 29.

What’s strange about removing the coughing-and-sneezing question is that it has been reposted all over the internet, including at news outlets like the Washington Post in early October, on state public health agency websites, and on blogs like Democratic Underground and Daily Kos.

A CDC official said the agency is continually updating its website. “This particular Q&A is being updated to ensure people understand that Ebola is not an airborne virus like the flu and will be reposted soon,” the official said in an email.

Asked about the possibility of Ebola becoming airborne at an Oct. 7 press conference, CDC Director Tom Frieden said Ebola hasn’t spread that way before and is unlikely to mutate into an airborne form.

“Ebola spreads by direct contact with someone who is sick or with the body fluids of someone who is sick or died from it,” Frieden said. “We do not see airborne transmission in the outbreak in Africa. We don’t see it elsewhere in what we’ve seen so far.”

UPDATE: 10/31/14, 7:41 a.m. — The CDC has added a new answer about coughing and sneezing to its Ebola Q&A. The new answer emphasizes that the virus doesn’t spread that way:

Can Ebola be spread by coughing or sneezing?

There is no evidence indicating that Ebola virus is spread by coughing or sneezing. Ebola virus is transmitted through direct contact with the blood or body fluids of a person who is sick with Ebola; the virus is not transmitted through the air (like measles virus). However, droplets (e.g., splashes or sprays) of respiratory or other secretions from a person who is sick with Ebola could be infectious, and therefore certain precautions (called standard, contact, and droplet precautions) are recommended for use in healthcare settings to prevent the transmission of Ebola virus from patients sick with Ebola to healthcare personnel and other patients or family members.

This article has been updated to include the CDC’s response.

Global Research

Pentagon Funds Vaccine to Counter Airborne Exposure to Ebola


DoD considers Ebola spreading through air a severe threat

Image Credits: Honou / Flickr (Sky background)

Citing concerns over “aerosol exposure to Ebola,” the Pentagon awarded a $9.5 million contract to a biotechnology company to manufacture an Ebola vaccine.

The company, Profectus BioSciences, announced today that the Pentagon “contracted the manufacture and … preclinical testing of the Profectus trivalent Ebola/Marburg vaccine” which had previously been tested to “confirm protection of non-human primates from aerosol exposure to Ebola and Marburg viruses.”

“In July 2014, Profectus BioSciences and the GNL were awarded a 3 year, $8.5M grant from the DOD/Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program to support development of a lyophilized trivalent VesiculoVax™-vectored vaccine to protect against all major strains of Ebola and Marburg viruses delivered as aerosols,” the press release stated. “The lyophilized trivalent vaccine is being tested in both pre-exposure and post-exposure studies to confirm protection of non-human primates from aerosol exposure to Ebola and Marburg viruses.”

The development of this vaccine stemmed from the Pentagon’s concern over the airborne transmission of filoviruses such as Ebola which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finally admitted spreads like the flu through coughing and sneezing.

The Pentagon took the threat so seriously that it hosted a “Filovirus Medical Countermeasures Workshop” in 2013 which “brought together government, academic and industry experts” to underscore its Ebola vaccine requirements.

“The DoD seeks a trivalent filovirus vaccine that is effective against aerosol exposure and protective against filovirus disease for at least one year,” read an executive summary of the workshop.

On Monday, the CDC released a pamphlet warning against the “droplet spread” of Ebola which happens “when germs traveling inside droplets that are coughed or sneezed from a sick person enter the eyes, nose, or mouth of another person.”

“Is Ebola spread through droplets? Yes,” the pamphlet reads.

But, strangely enough, the CDC’s strict definition of “airborne transmission” is limited to “when a germ floats through the air after a person talks, coughs, or sneezes” and not “when germs traveling inside droplets that are coughed or sneezed from a sick person,” which are obviously traveling through air as well.

“Note to CDC: 99% of the world doesn’t know the difference, or even care for that matter,” wrote Royce Christyn with “What we want to know is ‘if this person is sick and they sneeze or cough near me, am I going to die?’”

U.S. Army scientists previously demonstrated that the airborne transmission of Ebola was possible “at lower temperature and humidity than that normally present in sub-Saharan Africa” during a 1995 study, and they suggested the high temperatures and humidity present in Africa “may have been a factor limiting aerosol transmission of Ebola virus in the African epidemics.”


It Will Take 6.25 BILLION “Man Years” To Pay Off Federal Government Liabilities: “A Mathematical Impossibility”

by Mac Slavo


We often hear government officials and mainstream financial pundits throwing around numbers like a billion or trillion. To most Americans these numbers are indiscernible. They are so incredibly enormous that we can’t even imagine what one billion dollars actually looks like, let alone what it takes to generate such capital. And a trillion, or better yet, the $17.9 Trillion that is our national debt? Forget about it! That’s so much money that we’re talking piles of cash the size of skyscrapers.


But even a visualization like this makes it difficult to understand how much money this actually is.

Ann Bardnhardt, who in 2011 shut the doors to her investment firm and urged her clients to withdraw their money from all markets because she says the entire system has been utterly destroyed, will blow your mind in her most recent blog post.

It turns out money the way we were taught to understand it in school isn’t really how we should be valuing economies or debt. Instead, we need to be looking at what that money represents.

How do we define the sizes of economies?  In dollars?  Nope.  These systems should be measured in terms of a transcendent, invariant unit.  Currencies are, by definition, variant, because they are constantly changing relative to one another.  This includes the dollar, which is itself measured against a BASKET of other currencies.  I propose that GDP should be measured in the unit of MAN HOURS or MAN YEARS.  $20 per hour average wage.  2000 hour average work year.  Because the buying power of an average man hour or man year shouldn’t change much at all.  Think about it.

So, if we take the latest bee-ess GDP for the former US of $16.8 trillion, and if we use an average wage of $20 per hour, or $40,000 per year, we get an economy of 840 billion man hours, or 420 million man years.

Puts a different spin on it, huh?  Now, you really want your mind blown?  Do that same calculation with the debt (now $18 trillion).  Now do it with the unfunded liabilities of the FEDGOV (conservatively $250 trillion).

450 million man years, and 6.25 billion man years respectively.

Source: Notes for Apres la Guerre Part 2: Banking and Financial Market Theory

So, when we talk about trillions of tax dollars being spent on banks or infused into shadow investment houses around the globe, we’re actually not just talking about money being stolen from one group of people that’s being distributed to another. What we’re talking about is the literal theft of our lives – our time and energy.

The unfunded liabilities are estimated at $250 trillion, or as Barnhardt noted, 6.25 Billion man years.

To put that into perspective, it will take roughly 139 million Americans working non-stop for 45 years just to cover the government’s unfunded liabilities at their current levels. 

Currently there are about 144 million working Americans with about 100 million not in the labor force for various reasons. So, just to pay off those liabilities, every single working American would have to spend the next 45 years of their lives sending 100% of their income to the government.

That’s how bad of a situation this is.

The arithmetic is clear: Repaying our national debt and unfunded liabilities is a mathematical impossibility. It will never happen.

Bardhardt understands the frustrations of many Americans who are fed up with having their livelihoods stolen on a wholesale basis by government, as well as business leaders who claim they are doing God’s work. She has a solution:

Since you’re probably sitting there thinking that people need to be executed for this mess, let me throw out an idea for how to go about meting out justice for these massive financial crimes after the war.  I would simply say that the amount of a theft should be converted to man years, and if the man years-equivalent of what was stolen is in excess of the average working life of a man, say 50 years, then the offense would be a capital offense and execution would be on the table.  For anything less than that, the man years conversion would inform the judge or jury as to incarceration terms.

So, just pulling a completely random number out of the sky, say $1.6 billion, and converting that to man years at an average wage of $40,000 per year, that is 40,000 man years, which equals exactly twelve feet of rope, which happily, can be reused an almost unlimited number of times.

Over $1.6 billion in shareholder deposits were vaporized at MF Global under the watchful eye of Former New Jersey Governor John Corzine (left). He served no prison time.

We’re talking massive amounts of time and energy here that have been pillaged from the American people, as well as tens of millions of others in Europe and Asia.

As Ann Barnhardt notes in her post, the end result can only come in the form of widespread warfare and a total collapse of the system as we have come to know it.

We are on the tail end of a paradigm built upon debt and false promises. The numbers are now so incredibly large that the trajectory is irreversible.

Our banking system, monetary dominance and geo-political influence are at a breaking point and those who want to come out the other side of the coming disaster need to be making final preparations.

The U.S. government has war-gamed and simulated these very scenarios. They know a massive economic collapse is not only on the horizon – it’s happening right now. They also know that as more people lose their jobs, homes and ability to put food on the table they’re going to come looking for someone to blame. There will be panic and violence. There will be bloodshed and war.

This is the future that awaits.


The American Failure behind ‘Grand Strategic Cultures’ and Modern Conflict

New Eastern Outlook
by Matthew Crosston

45345435345This work is about how a specific conceptualization of ‘culture’ in intelligence studies, amongst scholars at first but subsequently practitioners as well, has taken on too powerful a role, one that has become too restrictive in its impact on thinking about other intelligence communities, especially non-Western ones. This restriction brings about unintentional cognitive closure that damages intelligence analysis. My argument leans heavily in many ways on the fine work of Desch in Security Studies, who cogently brought to light over fifteen years ago how ultra-popular cultural theories were best utilized as supplements to traditional realist approaches and were not in fact capable of supplanting or replacing realist explanations entirely. Intelligence Studies today needs a similar ‘intellectual intervention’ as it has almost unknowingly advanced in the post-Cold War era on the coattails of Security Studies but has largely failed to apply some needed corrective measures that discipline enforced on itself when it came to cultural approaches over the past two and a half decades.

In the early literature within Intelligence Studies there were two traditions of ‘culture’ that, while affiliated with each other, were still quite distinct. The more accurate version in my opinion dealt with intelligence culture more in the manner of organizational culture, with its commensurate almost corporate-like elaborations. A second broader version co-existed alongside this, tied more intimately with the concept of a country’s strategic culture grandly defined. This version stated intelligence cultures would be a fairly accurate mimic or mirror of the grander strategic national culture. Every country’s strategic culture would be inevitably unique, tied within a complex web of language, history, local custom, religion, ethnicity, etc. In time as a discipline Intelligence Studies has shifted from that quieter, more humble, and quite frankly more accurate and accessible conceptualization of culture to the grander one that is inherently more mysterious, semi-knowable at best. This is of course rather whimsically ironic given that the nation most responsible for this push is the state with by far the largest, most organizationally micro-managed intelligence community and is almost always victim to the accusation by other nations of having no true definable culture at all NOT dependent upon innate business-corporate concepts.

The consequence of this is important: this semi-mystical conceptualization can actually cause scholars and practitioners to get bogged down searching for ‘intrinsic essences’ of a grand strategic culture when all they should rightly focus on is how national security priorities can suddenly or surprisingly change and evolve, forcing intelligence communities to alter and adapt their organizational culture and subsequent priorities and foci. It is very much like the corporate mindset. In fact, intelligence communities by training and objective strive to be pragmatic and ‘non-cultural.’ For some reason Intelligence Studies over time has transformed this innate pragmatic struggle and made it more about problems within a state’s unique grand strategic culture, whatever it may happen to be. This not only oversteps the mark in terms of how we should be pursuing our research in Intelligence Studies, it does not accurately reflect reality as it ‘false forces’ scholars to ignore important modern minutiae that would otherwise be emphasized in a system focusing on corporate organizational culture instead. I find a connection with this process to the cognitive closure discussed brilliantly by Hatlebrekke. Indeed, I am basically arguing here that over-adherence or over-emphasis on this ‘grand strategic cultural’ approach to intelligence evaluation often induces its own cognitive closure amongst scholars and practitioners, thus leading to inaccurate analyses and conclusions.

Intelligence communities by hook or by crook seek optimal information for gaining optimal insight over a dynamic evolving issue range. This is arguably especially the case for intelligence communities NOT in the West as they tend to not be the beneficiaries of internal political stability and intellectual traditions that have placed ‘rules of the game’ and operational/ethical constraints over Western intelligence behavior. Thus this work is both a rebuke against how the concept of grand strategic culture has evolved to dominate the research thinking of intelligence studies scholars and a plea to consciously return to the less grand but more accurate tradition of corporate organizational culture as a primary causal pathway to determine modern non-Western intelligence community behavior and priority-making.

Let’s take two very distinct ‘quick glance’ cases to illustrate all of this high-minded theory: the rise of radical Islam in the 1990s and the conflict in Eastern Ukraine today. There are TONS of scholarly, diplomatic, and journalistic confirmations since the 1990s testifying to the fact that the United States always had ample opportunity to understand the threat Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda could represent to the country. While this ‘intelligence failure’ has been examined from numerous sides that deal with communication gaps, bureaucratic infighting, and turf wars, what has been largely ignored is the fact that the national myopia on the part of America can be largely explained by its over-reliance on this grand strategic cultural approach of intelligence, which simply dictated to the entire country in the 1990s that America was impervious to any external terrorist threat. If it had jettisoned this approach and instead focused on the more corporate organizational cultural approach, then all of the aforementioned information could have gained greater focus and relevance.

The conflict in Ukraine today is still massively misconstrued and misinformed in the West. Once again, it is the over-reliance on grand strategic culture that pushes the problem. This approach leaves an analyst with no choice but to begin from a foundation that assumes Russian aggression, Russian aspiration for re-establishing empire (whatever that actually means is never defined of course), and Russian desire to interfere in the affairs of its neighbors. All of these approaches are overblown and sometimes purposely misconstrued for the agendas of other parties. When utilizing an organizational cultural approach for intelligence, however, one is forced to look more carefully at the economic, political, and military agreements and deals that were already in place and meant to be enforced when the Maidan revolution took place and forced the Ukrainian President to flee. Focusing on the aftermath of that removal and the consequences to those micro-realities goes MUCH farther in explaining how the conflict has proceeded across Eastern Ukraine. The failure of the West to understand this or know how to engage the conflict so as to be a positive source for resolution rather than a hindrance to all parties is still stronger evidence of how the grand strategic cultural approach forces analysts to think in limited, stereotypical, and highly polarizing ways. Let alone the fact that accuracy is reduced as a consequence.

Since it is useless to close the scholarly barn door after the intellectual cows have escaped, the proposal here is to adopt the term ‘condition’ to take the place of the organizational concept of culture and allow the grand strategic concept of culture to maintain its naming rights. To understand intelligence communities – their beliefs, priorities, and operational goals in the modern day – one need not be a prophet of a country’s particular and parochial grand strategic culture. One simply needs to focus on the strategic and dynamic intelligence conditions that engage, create friction, and produce change – sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly – within the community in question. Ironically, this call for a similar ‘Deschian’ intellectual intervention that took place within Security Studies more than fifteen years ago also offers Intelligence Studies a chance to properly differentiate itself as a discipline from its ‘big brother’ and thus further solidify its place within the pantheon of intellectualism.

Dr. Matthew Crosston is Professor of Political Science and Director of the International Security and Intelligence Studies program at Bellevue University, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

New Eastern Outlook

The Ebola Story Doesn’t Smell Right

Strategic Culture
by Paul Craig ROBERTS

The federal government has announced that thousands of additional US soldiers are being sent to Liberia. General Gary Volesky said the troops would «stamp out» ebola. The official story is that combat troops are being sent to build treatment structures for those infected with ebola. 

Why combat troops? Why not send a construction outfit such as an engineer battalion if it has to be military? Why not do what the government usually does and contract with a construction company to build the treatment units? «Additional thousands of troops» results in a very large inexperienced construction crew for 17 treatment units. It doesn’t make sense. 

Stories that don’t make sense and that are not explained naturally arouse suspicions, such as: Are US soldiers being used to test ebola vaccines and cures, or more darkly are they being used to bring more ebola back to the US? 

I understand why people ask these questions. The fact that they will receive no investigative answer will deepen suspicions.

Uninformed and gullible Americans will respond: «The US government would never use its own soldiers and its own citizens as guinea pigs. Before making a fool of yourself, take a moment to recall the many experiments the US government has conducted on American soldiers and citizens. For example, search online for «unethical human experimentation in the United States» or «human radiation experiments», and you will find that federal agencies such as the Department of Defense and Atomic Energy Commission have: exposed US soldiers and prisoners to high levels of radiation; irradiated the testicles of males and tested for birth defects (high rate resulted); irradiated the heads of children; fed radioactive material to mentally disabled children.

The Obama regime’s opposition to quarantine for those arriving from West Africa is also a mystery. The US Army has announced that the Army intends to quarantine every US soldier returning from deployment in Liberia. The Army sensibly says that an abundance of caution is required in order to minimize the risk of transferring the ebola outbreak to the US. However, the White House has not endorsed the Army’s decision, and the White House has expressed opposition to the quarantines ordered by the governors of New York and New Jersey. 

Apparently pressure from the White House and threats of law suits from those subject to quarantine have caused the two states to loosen their quarantines. A nurse returning from treating ebola patients in West Africa has been cleared by New Jersey for discharge after being symptom-free for 24 hours instead of the 21-days it takes for the disease to produce symptoms. The nurse threatened a lawsuit, and the false issue of «discrimination against health care workers» has arisen. How is it discrimination to quarantine those with the greatest exposure to ebola? 

Once symptoms appear, an infected person is dangerous to others until the person is quarantined. As the CDC now has been forced to admit, after stupidly denying the obvious fact, the current ebola strain can spread by air. All it takes is a sneeze or a cough or a contaminated surface

In other words, it can spread like flu. Previous denials of this fact helped to create the suspicion that the new ebola strain is a weaponized biowarfare strain created by 

US government labs in West Africa. As University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle has revealed, Washington placed its biowarfare laboratories in African countries that did not sign the convention banning such experimentation. 

Washington’s deviousness in evading the convention that the US government signed has produced another suspicion: Did the new ebola strain escape, perhaps via some lab mishap that infected lab workers, or was the strain deliberately released in order to test if it works?

The only intelligent and responsible policy is to stop all commercial flights to and from ebola areas. Health worker volunteers should be transported by military aircraft and should be required to undergo the necessary quarantine before being transported back to the US.

Why does the White House oppose the only responsible and intelligent policy? Why is Congress silent on the issue?

The resistance to a sane policy fosters the suspicions that the government or some conspiracy group intends to use ebola to declare martial law and herd the population or undesirable parts of it, into the FEMA camps that Halliburton was paid to construct (without the public ever being told the reason for the camps). 

It is certainly strange that a government involved in long-term wars in the Middle East, the purpose of which is unclear to the public, and in fomenting conflict with both Russia and China, two countries armed with nuclear weapons, would so recklessly create more suspicions among the public of its motives, intentions, and competence. 

Democracy requires that the public trust the government. Yet Washington does everything possible to destroy this trust and to present a picture of dysfunctional government with hidden and undeclared agendas.

Strategic Culture


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,085 other followers

%d bloggers like this: