![\"ebola](\"https:\/\/www.globalresearch.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/ebola_micrograph_virus-afrique.jpg\")
<\/div>\nWe can now be extraordinarily confident that the U.S. government is lying, in key material respects, about the latest Ebola outbreak\u2014and not just because it lies about nearly everything of political consequence.\u00a0 This article shows that there are compelling reasons to believe we are being told three big lies about Ebola.\u00a0 It also offers a simple, rational, yet disturbing, explanation that very tidily accounts for all three lies.\u00a0 The explanation supposes that the current Ebola outbreak consists in an act of U.S.-linked bioterror.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n One key U.S. driven lie has to do with the Western MSM\u2019s insistence that nobody of any repute believes that Ebola might be airborne.\u00a0 On this issue, the Public Health Agency of Canada<\/span> remarks<\/a><\/span>:<\/span><\/p>\n In the laboratory, infection through small-particle aerosols has been demonstrated in primates, and airborne spread among humans is strongly suspected, although it has not yet been conclusively demonstrated (1, 6, 13).\u00a0 The importance of this route of transmission is not clear. Poor hygienic conditions can aid the spread of the virus.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n A few scientific studies expressing concern about the airborne possibility are cited in this <\/span>article<\/a><\/span>, and other such studies are not hard to find.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n So there are people with authority to speak to the issue who believe that there is some cause for concern regarding the airborne Ebola prospect, but the U.S. government\/MSM complex instead lies and acts like this isn\u2019t the case.<\/span><\/p>\n Before getting to the second U.S. lie, it is important to mention three facts that have not received enough discussion.\u00a0 First\u2014and this may be of pivotal significance\u2013we still have no ideahow Ebolagot to West Africa.\u00a0 <\/span>See for yourself<\/a><\/span>; there\u2019s never been an Ebola outbreak in West Africa before.<\/span><\/p>\n Perhaps the racist U.S.\/MSM view is that all African countries are the same, so who cares?<\/span><\/p>\n Second, the current outbreak, in terms of the number and international breadth of infections, does seem to be far more contagious than any previous outbreak; as the previous link shows, we now have at least 1,975 cases. <\/span><\/p>\n Now pause for a moment and take this fully on board: the 1,975 cases exceed the total number of Ebola cases from 1977 to 2014\u2019s outbreak.\u00a0 So it\u2019s no surprise that we have, for example, <\/span>signs of infected individuals in Albania<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n The second lie really is a lie of nondisclosure, and concerns the reality that the MSM has not told us that we are dealing with a biologically distinct form of Ebola that has never been seen before.<\/span><\/p>\n So, consider the following disconcerting information appearing in the <\/span>New England Journal of Medicine in April 2014<\/a><\/span> regarding the current West African, Guinean outbreak of Ebola:<\/span><\/p>\n Phylogenetic analysis of the full-length sequences established a separate clade for the Guinean EBOV strain in sister relationship with other known EBOV strains. This suggests that the EBOV strain from Guinea has evolved in parallel with the strains from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gabon from a recent ancestor and has not been introduced from the latter countries into Guinea. Potential reservoirs of EBOV, fruit bats of the\u00a0 species Hypsignathusmonstrosus,\u00a0Epomopsfranqueti, & Myonycteristorquata,\u00a0are present in large parts of West Africa.<\/span>18<\/a><\/span>\u00a0It is possible that EBOV has circulated undetected in this region for some time. The emergence of the virus in Guinea highlights the risk of EBOV outbreaks in the whole West African subregion.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Furthermore, from the same study:<\/span><\/p>\n The high degree of similarity among the 15 partial L gene sequences, along with the three full-length sequences and the epidemiologic links between the cases, suggest a single introduction of the virus into the human population. This introduction seems to have happened in early December 2013 or even before.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, the Guinean variant of Ebola we now confront has been found to be sufficiently genetically distinct from all previous versions of Ebola that it has been assigned its own genetic branch, or clade, and it is believed to have evolved in parallel from an ancestor held in common with a variant of Ebola native to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gabon. Moreover, the current outbreak began not in June or July, but as early as April 2014 and perhaps even earlier than December, 2013.<\/span><\/p>\n And, we seem to have a single introduction of the Guinea (West African) Ebola variant into the human population.\u00a0 Thus, we seem not to have, for example, something along the lines of multiple bites of humans by supposedly Guinea variant Ebola infected fruit bats.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n Finally, the Western Africa Ebola outbreak does not appear to be traceable to Central Africa or anywhere else, and so we still do not know how Ebola got to West Africa.<\/span><\/p>\n Let us briefly summarize before presenting the third U.S. Ebola lie and concluding with a reasonable explanation that ties the three lies together. <\/span><\/p>\n The Guinea Ebola variant has never been seen before.\u00a0 It might well be far more contagious than any Ebola variant hitherto encountered; it could even be airborne.\u00a0 We still have no idea how Ebola arose in West Africa, but it did so some time ago\u2014well before the Western MSM started to spew its lies.<\/span><\/p>\n Now the third U.S. Ebola lie: In a Matt Drudge-linked article entitled \u201c<\/span>The Federal Government\u2019s Inconsistent Ebola Story<\/a><\/span>\u201d, we find that the U.S. government is telling two completely inconsistent stories regarding the circumstances surrounding delivery of MappPharmaceuticals\u2019 magic ZMapp Ebola drug to Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol.\u00a0 Thus, we have:<\/span><\/p>\n According to the CDC, it was Samaritan\u2019s Purse, the private humanitarian organization that employs Dr. Brantley, who reached out to them in an attempt to find an experimental Ebola drug. The CDC says it passed Samaritan\u2019s Purse along to NIH, who referred them to contacts within Mapp.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThis experimental treatment was arranged privately by Samaritan\u2019s Purse,\u201d the CDC said. \u201cSamaritan\u2019s Purse contacted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who referred them to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH was able to provide the organization with the appropriate contacts at the private company developing this treatment. The NIH was not involved with procuring, transporting, approving, or administering the experimental treatments.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The\u00a0New York Times\u00a0first reported this version of events on Aug. 6, and the statement was posted on the CDC\u2019s website a few days later,<\/span>where it remains<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n But, as the Morning Consult reports in the same article<\/a>, we also have:<\/span><\/p>\n But the NIH told Morning Consult one of its scientists on the ground in West Africa approached the charity before the group had even decided to pursue an experimental alternative.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe NIH scientist who was in West Africa referred Samaritan\u2019s Purse to company contacts because they were best equipped to answer questions about the status of their experimental treatment,\u201d the agency said in an email to Morning Consult. \u201cThis occurred before Samaritan\u2019s Purse decided to pursue an experimental therapy.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n A statement from Samaritan\u2019s Purse also conflicts with the CDC\u2019s telling of events, and indicates the NIH and other government agencies may have played an active role in procuring the drugs.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe experimental medication given to Dr. Brantley was recommended to us,\u201d the group said. \u201cWe didn\u2019t seek it out, but worked with the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies to obtain this medication.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hence, we have the U.S. government saying both that delivery of the drug to the aid workers was initially government\u2019s idea, and that it wasn\u2019t initially government\u2019s idea.\u00a0 Since both of these possibilities cannot be true, we have our third U.S. federal Ebola lie.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n But whose idea was it, really, to deliver the ZMapp magic serum (which <\/span>is said <\/a><\/span>to have begun reversing Brantly\u2019s condition within 20 minutes to an hour)?\u00a0 In all likelihood it was the U.S. government\u2019s idea, at a minimum for the following reason mentioned in the Morning Consult article: <\/span><\/p>\n If [Mapp] did this on their own, they must have had unbelievable confidence in the product and lawyers who know this up and down,\u201d Vox said. \u201cIf they went this alone, their investors should be worried, because that\u2019s reckless. A team of scientists could get in a lot of trouble doing that, and I can\u2019t imagine they run their company that way, especially considering they have support from the Department of Defense.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s put all of the above together and move toward wrapping matters up.We have what appears to be the most contagious variant of Ebola ever encountered, its genetic form is novel in important respects, and we still have no idea how it arose in West Africa.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n Yet, we are told that an experimental drug, ZMapp\u2014produced by a previously unheard of U.S. firm with U.S. Department of Defense ties\u2014is functioning in miraculous fashion.\u00a0 Furthermore, the U.S. government cannot keep its story straight about who initiated the delivery of the experimental drug to the U.S. aid workers, but there are compelling reasons to suppose it was the U.S. government that engineered the delivery. <\/span><\/p>\n All of the foregoing should prompt us to ask: When was Mapp Pharmaceutical\u2019s magic drug ZMappdeveloped?<\/span><\/p>\n The following language, drawn from an <\/span>article at International Business Times<\/a><\/span>, might provide guidance:<\/span><\/p>\n A\u00a0statement\u00a0from Mapp said: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cZMapp is the result of a collaboration between Mapp Biopharmaceutical Inc, LeafBio, DefyrusInc, the US government and Public Health Agency of Canada.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cZMapp is composed of three \u2018humanised\u2019\u00a0monoclonal antibodies\u00a0manufactured in plants, specifically Nicotiana. It is an optimised cocktail combining the best components of MB-003 and ZMAb.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cZMapp was first identified as a drug candidate in January 2014 and has not yet been evaluated for safety in humans. As such,\u00a0very little\u00a0of the drug is currently available. Any\u00a0decision\u00a0to use an experimental drug in a patient would be a\u00a0decision\u00a0made by the treating physician under the regulatory guidelines of the FDA.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n One very interesting thing to note is the parties involved in producing ZMapp.\u00a0 Two of the parties are the U.S. government and the Public Health Agency of Canada\u2014and the Public Health Agency of Canada, you will recall, is the very same agency that \u201cstrongly suspects\u201d that Ebola might be airborne (see the second paragraph of this article).\u00a0 Yet, we are constantly told the U.S. government suspects no such thing.<\/span><\/p>\n But there are even more important things to consider.<\/span><\/p>\n Does \u201cZMapp was first identified as a drug candidate in January 2014\u201d mean that ZMappwas designed from the ground up, pretty much when the outbreak began, with the specific purpose of treating the Guinea Ebola variant (see above for timing of the outbreak)?\u00a0 Or, does it mean that ZMapp was repurposed in some way to grapple with the Guinea variant?\u00a0 Or does it perhaps mean something else entirely?<\/span><\/p>\n In any event, if the above MappPharmaceuticals statement is true, this much is perfectly clear: a major decision about ZMapp and its potential efficacy was made in January 2014, and that decision appears to have been made very close on the heels of the beginning of the current Guinea Ebola outbreak.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, if ZMapp really is the miraculous success <\/span>it is purported to be<\/a><\/span>, we are given to believe that, in Research and Development terms, results must have been achieved virtually overnight.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0This is because with the beginning of the outbreak of the brand newGuinea Ebola variant dated to around December 2013, Mapp could not possibly have had much time before its January 2014 decision to target the Guinea Ebola variant with ZMapp. <\/span><\/p>\n Or might Mappin fact have had plenty of time?<\/span><\/p>\n One possibility is that Mappdid have plenty of time, because it knew about the brand new Ebola variant before its debut appearance in West Africa.\u00a0 This would be very strong evidence of a bioterror conspiracy, would it not?\u00a0 Of course, we are very far from sure about this prospect.<\/span><\/p>\n However<\/span>, even if we are to believe that Mapp did not know about the novel Guinea Ebola variant before that variant\u2019s first appearance, but did in fact advance anyway with ZMapp againstthe Guinea variant in January 2014, wemust still ask exactly how ZM appended up being effective against a brand new variant Mapp would, under the present assumption, have only just encountered.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n Perhaps Mapp had been in the process of designing ZMapp so that it could successfully attack already extant Ebola variants, and whatever properties made it effective against those already extant variants also transferred to the novel Guinea variant?<\/span><\/p>\n Maybe.<\/span><\/p>\n But if that is so, ZMapp should prove successful against variants of Ebola other than the Guinea variant.\u00a0 Will it?<\/span><\/p>\n If it doesn\u2019t prove successful against variants of Ebola other than the Guinea variant, I do not see how one can logically avoid the conclusion that the West African rooted, Guinea variant of Ebola amounts to U.S. government linked bioterror.<\/span><\/p>\n Unless, of course, one is willing to invoke what amounts to a miraculous stroke of luck consisting in the design of a solution that successfully attacks something that\u2019s never been seen before and was not anticipated\u2014even though the solution fails against related versions of the same problem.<\/span><\/p>\n In closing, please note that the U.S. act of bioterror explanation economically accounts for all three U.S. lies discussed in the article.\u00a0 It explains why the U.S. government is lying about the airborne status of Ebola, why the U.S. government\/MSM hybrid is in no hurry to disclose the geographical and virological novelties of the Guinea variant, and, finally, why the U.S. government, out of one side of its mouth, wants to act like its \u201cmiracle experimental drug\u201d had to be pried out of its greedy and comprehensive regulatory hands.<\/span><\/p>\n It must be stated, though, that there is one last possibility after all, which is that the Dr. Kent Brantly miracle recovery is no real recovery at all.<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Jason Kissner<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0is Associate Professor of Criminology at California State University.\u00a0Dr. Kissner\u2019s\u00a0research on gangs and self-control has appeared in academic journals.\u00a0 His current empirical research interests include active shootings.\u00a0 \u00a0You can reach him at<\/span>crimprof2010@hotmail.com<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n