Go to

www.ufomind.com

and they have all the hard data.

God help us...maybe the patriot kooks were right?

-- Stan (stan@truth.com), December 01, 1999

Answers

Click here

-- def (a@b.c), December 01, 1999.

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/apr99/1999L-04-22-01.html

I couldn't find anything about anthrax, using the SEARCH box on the URL page you gave me, but I eventually came up with this upon hitting a CONTRAILS hot-link a few pages in.

Note the first story is from Canada!

-- profit of doom (doom@helltopay.ca), December 01, 1999.

Okay, I get it. They wanna kill us all off so they can't collect our tax money. Makes perfect sense to me. Just one question I have for you. Do you have a habit of drinking large amounts of gasoline?

-- Richard Noggin (RichardNoggin@hockeymail.com), December 01, 1999.

They ain't tryin' to poison us, simpletons, they are trying to inoculate us from Anthrax with a vaccine. How else could they do it to 270 million people without causing a panic? Of course, who knows if it can even be done by plane way way up thar.

-- Huh? (maybe@whoknows.com), December 01, 1999.

NOGGIN: You really MUST cease and desist from bobbing for apples in barrels of gasoline.

Just look at the permanent brain damage it's done you--or are you just one of the Opra dumbed-down crowd?

Now you don't even have enough brain cells left to think up a scheme to get yourself nominated for the 1999 Darwins! What WILL you do now?

-- profit of doom (doom@helltopay.ca), December 01, 1999.

Oh Profit of Doom,

Are you not original enough to think up your own insult instead of stealing mine? It must be a small penis complex you have....

-- Richard Noggin (RichardNoggin@hockeymail.com), December 01, 1999.

Huh, isn't it illegal in the USA for "them" to innoculate without our permission? Flu/pneumonia vaccine is optional, and persons have the opportunity to ask their personal physician if it is in their best interest. Obviously this spraying is NOT benevolent.

And it IS legal for the military to test bio weapons on the public without their permission. I posted that prior. Not one has yet to respond to my challenge to find comparable documentaion specifying that it is legal to vaccinate without permission.

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 01, 1999.

Stan,

If those chemtrails were anthrax most of the population of the U.S. would have been dead a long time ago. The stuff is so deadly that it usually kills within 2 or 3 days.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 01, 1999.

Hokie, are you blind? You asked about that on the Dallas chemtrail thread and I provided the D.O.D. code that shows how they can do this.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 01, 1999.

US Code as of: 01/26/98

Sec. 1512. Transportation, open air testing, and disposal; Presidential determination; report to Congress; notice to Congress and State Governors

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act may be used for the transportation of any lethal chemical or any biological warfare agent to or from any military installation in the United States, or the open air testing of any such agent within the United States, or the disposal of any such agent within the United States until the following procedures have been implemented:

(1) the Secretary of Defense (hereafter referred to in this chapter as the ''Secretary'') has determined that the transportation or testing proposed to be made is necessary in the interests of national security;

(2) the Secretary has brought the particulars of the proposed transportation, testing, or disposal to the attention of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who in turn may direct the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service and other qualified persons to review such particulars with respect to any hazards to public health and safety which such transportation, testing, or disposal may pose and to recommend what precautionary measures are necessary to protect the public health and safety;

(3) the Secretary has implemented any precautionary measures recommended in accordance with paragraph (2) above (including, where practicable, the detoxification of any such agent, if such agent is to be transported to or from a military installation for disposal): Provided, however, That in the event the Secretary finds the recommendation submitted by the Surgeon General would have the effect of preventing the proposed transportation, testing, or disposal, the President may determine that overriding considerations of national security require such transportation, testing, or disposal be conducted. Any transportation, testing, or disposal conducted pursuant to such a Presidential determination shall be carried out in the safest practicable manner, and the President shall report his determination and an explanation thereof to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as far in advance as practicable; and

(4) the Secretary has provided notification that the transportation, testing, or disposal will take place, except where a Presidential determination has been made: (A) to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least 10 days before any such transportation will be commenced and at least 30 days before any such testing or disposal will be commenced; (B) to the Governor of any State through which such agents will be transported, such notification to be provided appropriately in advance of any such transportation.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/ch32.html

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 01, 1999.

Well? I don't see anything in this code saying that they need to ask for our permission, do you Hokie?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 01, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

I made my way to Contrail Conspiracies but I did not find the lab tests described above which supposedly turned up anthrax. Could you provide a direct link to that frame? (look in your web browser's "history") to get the frame's URL.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 02, 1999.

They need to prevent Anthrax in our livestock as well. This isn't just a human problem.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 02, 1999.

WIll, good point!

-- Maggie (song bird@iwon.com), December 02, 1999.

Hmmmmn. For an administration that doesn't know what "is" is; re-read the law: it doesn't restrict "dispersal of biological vaccines"; nor does it require informing the Speaker of the House of Representatives (or other people); it refers to:

<>

---

Well, obviously, "dispersal of a vaccine" is not transportation or testing, so it must be okay.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 02, 1999.

These two sections of US Code 50 also seem applicable:

So it seems that given prior notice to Congress, biological agents can be used on human subjects for any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons agents.

And lets not forget about riot control!

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1520a.html

US Code as of: 01/26/98 Sec. 1520a. Restrictions on 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) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section 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.  (c) Informed consent required The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.  (d) Prior notice to Congress Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.  (e) ''Biological agent'' defined In this section, the term ''biological agent'' means any micro- organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro- organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing -  (1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;  (2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or  (3) deleterious alteration of the environment. 

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1524.html

US Code as of: 01/26/98 Sec. 1524. Agreements to provide support to vaccination programs of Department of Health and Human Services  (a) Agreements authorized The Secretary of Defense may enter into agreements with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide support for vaccination programs of the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the United States through use of the excess peacetime biological weapons defense capability of the Department of Defense.  (b) Report Not later than February 1, 1994, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the feasibility of providing Department of Defense support for vaccination programs under subsection (a) of this section and shall identify resource requirements that are not within the Department's capability.

-- Brad (breath@freshair.com), December 02, 1999.

.... and they have lots of surplus Air Force tankers that can load, carry, and disperse hundreds of thousands of gallons of liquids from high altitudes; while taking off from secure fields - no questions asked - and bypass normal air traffic controls by claiming DOD rights/DOD altitude reservations......

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 02, 1999.

You got it. The government doesn't write these codes in a way that would reveal their actual intent. They make it sound like it is intended for something else, but because of the way they worded it, they can use it for what they intended without any legal repercussions.

Look up the definition of the word "disposal." It not only means throwing something away, but also means "distribution", "allotment", "vending", and so on.

Of course "testing" could also be the operative word here. Since this is probably the first time they have tried anthrax innoculation on a large scale using very minimal concentration levels, this could be considered a "test."

They know that some people might have adverse reactions to it at full strength, and that a lot of people will refuse the standard method of vaccination by needle, so they figure they'll try it this way and see if it works. After hundreds of repeated doses of a .3% concentration, it might actually build up the desired immunity without any severe side effects, and the public won't protest because most will never even believe the government could do this.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 02, 1999.

I found the article that this referrences.

http://strangehaze.freeservers.com/reports/WillThomas4-99.htm

-- James (jking@eastland.net), December 03, 1999.

If I were in charge of the nation, and believed a terrorist attack about to happen using Anthrax, public law be damned~ if I had to decide between saving 99% of the population, or violating their civil rights...well guess what any rational person would do.

I'm not saying I believe this, but I have to agree with above quote:

***They ain't tryin' to poison us, simpletons, they are trying to inoculate us from Anthrax with a vaccine. How else could they do it to 270 million people without causing a panic?***

BTW, to all those who cry "my civil rights, no one asked!!", well, I don't guess that the civil defense people asked if you wanted tar black paper window shades during WWII. They were given to you, and you put them up for blackouts--AND you were punished if you didn't obey...yeah, yeah, yeah...but that was during a war...but..a..I guess a hostile enemy hitting our population (not the government) with anthrax could be considered an act of war also...so much for having our opinions asked...or the need to.

-- RJ (LtPita@aol.com), December 03, 1999.

Only one minor prob, RJ. Let's suppose that the levels of the "vaccine", administered over time, prove toxic to humans and livestock, not protective.

Let's suppose that six months or a year from now, low-level respiratory illnesses turn deadly and kill millions or tens of millions of Americans -- from the "vaccine".

Or that the "vaccine" mutates in some way.

IOW, let's suppose we don't really "understand" how to do this or what the effects will be, short- or long-term.

Let's suppose that human beings have an inherent right to determine whether or not they want to be the guinea pig subjects of a biological experiment by their government .... nahhh.

Let's merely suppose that the people we elect don't have the right to play "God" with us based on possibilities of attack, whatever they are, without the advise and consent of Congress and the populace themselves?

"Governments have rights, not people," eh?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 03, 1999.

Big Dog-

YOU ARE 1000% correct IF what you state happens.

However, IF, we can save a majority of the population in only a MONTH, I would say gov has no choice...BUT, if this was taking place a year ago, the gov most certainly should have asked...the logistics of doing it, however are beyond my mere mind...we can't even get an accurate census...how could the gov get permission to deliver 270 million injections in a month???? or even a year???and do it so the people most likely to cause the terrorism don't (pardon the pun) get wind of it???

-- RJ (LtPita@aol.com), December 03, 1999.

Uh guys - the problem is: who has created, tested, and sponsered the "assumed" vaccine?

See, one reason there are Army and Navy personnel refusing to get the anthrax shot - and getting disciplined/thrown in jail/thrown out of the service because of it - is that the Chinese control the ONLY company with the Clintons' administration's contract to develop and administer the program...

There have calls to investigate the supposed "poor quality" and "undocumented" testing that may - or may not have been actually done. But, citing "emergency conditions" the Clintons' DOD is forcing soldiers to get shot anyway - before they are deployed overseas.

No shots - no deployment.

There is at least one "dummy" corporation between the US contract and the Chinese company - that company, like most beltway bandits, didn't do anything but administer the contract. They didn't do the technical work, and it is that technical work and the testing quality - that has been questioned.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 03, 1999.

Now, here's a scary thought - you only asked about whether the vaccine worked.

Ask rather:

If it works, whose side might it be working for?

f it fails, whose side gains by it failing?

(It is after all, much easier to make a vaccine that fails, than one works that works. It is also much easier to make a vaccine that is too strong than one that is too weak. And, after all, a vaccine is only a virus that is "too weak" to kill, but "strong enough" to begin the immunization process. "Strong enough" is a relative term.....depending on who is measuring the strength.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 03, 1999.