Anthrax vaccinations

[Jan Klimkowski]

Deep black cats & dogs, eh?

David - we've discussed your excellent research and total frustration over this story before. It is a deep black secret.

I have a few random observations.

i) There was a French general at the time of Gulf War I who came out and said, (I paraphrase), that the French had no cases of Gulf War Syndrome (GWS). This was significant, and led researchers to believe that GWS may indeed have been caused by battlefield exposure. The reasoning was that only specific parts of the battlefield had been exposed to CBW, and the French forces were primarily deployed in a specific and separate field of action.

Of course, the battlefield exposure hypothesis was widely assumed to have been battlefield exposure to Iraqi use of CBW. Your research suggests it may have been allied used of CBW - something that would almost certainly never be officially admitted.

However, now, many years on, it appears that the French do have cases of GWS, suggesting battlefield exposure to CBW agents was probably not the sole cause.

Epidemiologist Prof Simon Wessely: Well, the USA have had the same problems that we have. The Canadians have had the same problems, but their CBW prophylaxis was very different. Australia have had the same problems, but much later. The Danes have had the same problems, though they were not actually in the war, but came on peacekeeping and they did not have CBW protection; they did not need it. Finally France, well, up until last week we did not think the French had any problems, but they have just published a report and I speed-read it in French over night and it does look as if they have got some problems after all, which does not surprise me, and it pleases me actually because they have been so smug about it, but it looks like they have had problems as well. They have just literally in the last few days published a report and I have not really had time to look at it.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:2aV...en&ct=clnk

ii) why drop biological weapons as well as chemical weapons?

Your comments about NATO and Soviet military doctrine being for a "mixed load" of chemical and biological weaponry are fascinating. However, that doctrine makes little sense to me.

If you want to wipe out a group of individuals at a location, chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin are pretty effective on their own. This of course was precisely what was allegedly used by the US in Operation Tailwind (see my post 11 in the thread linked below).

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...d#post4118

There are two further possible reasons for using biological weapons:

a) as a field test of a new biological agent. However, one would have expected a proper deep black scientific follow up, with a CBW SWAT team swarming over the site. If the recovery team actually consisted of just two Special Forces soldiers, then the field test hypothesis is unlikely.

b) if Saddam had indeed successfully landed a Scud packed with the chemical weapon, Sarin, inside Israel, then the allied forces may have upped the ante by dropping bombs containing both chemical and biological agents on Iraqi forces as a warning.

iii) I have problems with the following claim and suspect that - at the scientific level - it's disinformation:

The source continued by stating that the aircraft
dropped biological warfare munition(s) on an Iraqi
chemical/biological weapons factory and that numerous
deaths resulted. Source states the munition (s) contained
a bacteriological agent with a life of no more than
48 hours. The bacterium was not communicable, and
had no given name, only a batch number. Those
attacked with this weapon drowned in their own
bodily fluids, according to the source, who added
that the bio-bomb was parachute deployed and its
contents dispersed by aerosol spray.

Specifically, I have a problem with the claim that "the bacteriological agent had a life span of no more than 48 hours". At the biological level, this is fairly unlikely. Unless the bacteria entirely destroy their host, and thus themselves, one would expect them to find a way of surviving in the environment.

Chemical weapons are horrific but relatively clean - apart from the risk of blowback onto to one's own forces when the wind changes.

Biological weapons are horrific and dirty.

The use of biological weapons opens a Pandora's Box of unintended consequences, which could - theoretically - include certain symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome.

If the allies did use biological weapons in Gulf War I, it was an incredibly reckless and stupid thing to do.