Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day12Fixed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Zombie Apocalypse, Biological Warfare or Marketing Hype?

Inside Ebola

by DADY CHERY

Ask anyone what is Ebola, and the only reasonable answer you might get to this question is that it is a virus. The rest is fantasy, and these flights of fancy are not limited to the general public. At least one scientific editor has described the disease caused by the viral infection as a “Zombie Apocalypse,” and the relatively few Western researchers who are permitted to study the virus do their best to encourage the scaremongering. Again and again, they report that an Ebola infection’s mortality rate is 90 percent. They also suggest that every bat, boar and monkey in the forests of central Africa can transmit the disease. Popular books like The Hot Zone fill in the rest about Ebola hemorrhagic fever. A zombie apocalypse indeed, with blood oozing out of every pore, and the possibility of an infection if one whispers E-bo-laaaa. Boo!

Just when the public is terrified, the same scientists claim they’re on the case. They’ve got the cure. They’ve saved countless mice and guinea pigs from Ebola. They’ve even saved a few monkeys from the dreaded virus. This means they can save humans too. Or does it?

The idea of mouse-human equivalence has financed many scientific careers though it has often been a lie. In fact, Ebola behaves quite differently in its infections of different mammals. Fruit bats, which are regarded as being the probable “natural reservoir” for Ebola remain completely healthy even while they shed the virus in their bodily secretions. By contrast, pigs with Ebola get an illness like a severe cold that completely disappears in about 10 days. Ebola does cause a usually lethal hemorrhagic fever in untreated monkeys and humans, but the progression and duration of the disease differ with the species.begging slogans5

Ebola and similar viruses like Marburg did not come from some nefarious plan to kill Africans but are a direct result of human overpopulation: the monsters out the Pandora’s box of deforestation. The transmission of Ebola from bats to humans has probably resulted from our destruction of the habitats of bats. It is possible that the virus passes through an intermediate carrier, such as pigs, to reach humans. This is suggested by the fact that some healthy pigs and farmers in the Philippines show evidence (based on their serum antibodies) of having encountered Ebola. In addition, pigs that were deliberately infected with Ebola in a Canadian laboratory were able to aerosolize the virus and transmit it to monkeys without direct contact. Presumably, a similar transmission might occasionally happen between infected pigs and humans.

Given that pigs do a major service of thrash collection for human communities, among other things, and bats pollinate many fruits, the destruction of these species would merely exchange one kind of terror for another. Although scientists claim that anti-Ebola vaccines are just around the corner, their development is still at a primitive stage. Due to a need for high containment and special licenses, Ebola vaccination studies are limited to a handful of scientific groups that do not generally try to reproduce or verify each other’s work. In such studies, groups of monkeys are deliberately infected with intramuscular injections of the virus and then immediately vaccinated. Survival rates as high as 100 percent have been claimed, and this sounds rather good, until one realizes that this low mortality is only achievable if the vaccine is administered within about 30 minutes of infection. These vaccinations are obviously useless outside of laboratories, since the initial times of encounter with Ebola are usually unknown, and infections as early as a few minutes show no symptoms at all.

Much has been made of the fact that the Ebola research group in Manitoba, Canada, led by Gary P. Kobinger, has achieved 100 percent survival of some monkeys 24 hours post infection, and 50 percent survival 48 hours post infection, by giving these unfortunate monkeys an antibody mixture, now called ZMAb. These results look less impressive when one realizes that they involved only eight monkeys: four in the 24-hour group and four in the 48-hour group. Furthermore, two out of four monkeys in the 48-hour group died. In principle, the ZMAb should have vaccinated the monkeys by allowing them to develop their own immunity against Ebola, but later studies of the long-term effects of this supposed vaccination yielded mixed results. In one study, six out of six monkeys who had received ZMAb post infection, and lived, survived a later Ebola infection; in another study, two out of six animals died from their “post-vaccination” encounter with Ebola.

Alarmingly, one of the dead monkeys from the original eight had in its system an Ebola that had escaped the ZMAb by mutating. This alone suggests that a mortality rate of about 12 percent should be expected despite the “vaccination” since the virus is a moving target. Vaccines against such a target should likely require frequent and expensive reformulation.

Now, you might be thinking that a mortality rate around 12 percent would look awfully good in a Zombie Apocalypse, but is Ebola really such an invincible adversary? Even in the initial 1976 outbreak, when the virus killed 90 percent of its victims in Zaire (Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC), the mortality in Southern Sudan was 50 percent. In Gabon in 1996, the mortality was also 50 percent. Although the Zaire virus is generally regarded as being more lethal, doctors in the field who treat real human patients have instead ascribed the 90 percent mortality figure to an initial situation of panic that resulted in quarantine of the patients and their abandonment, without so much as rehydration therapy, despite symptoms that included a massive loss of fluids, an inability to swallow, fever, extreme weakness, headache and other pains.

In at least Zaire, medical doctors have greatly increased the survival rate of Ebola patients. As early as 1995, researchers at the University of Kinshasa discovered that extremely sick Ebola-infected patients, including ones who had been comatose, could be saved by transfusions of blood from individuals who had recovered from the same Ebola infection. In that study, the blood donors had been free of any symptoms and virus for more than three weeks. The recipients, on the other hand, did have the virus; they were very ill and in day 4 to 16 after the onset of their first symptoms. Nevertheless, seven out of eight survived, and these were actual human patients.

Even so, as an outbreak of Ebola flares up during this writing, Western scientists and medical doctors are flocking to Central Africa to expand their laboratory knowledge to real-live humans. Indeed the current Ebola outbreak in Central Africa provides a great opportunity for Phase I trials on humans without regard to ethics or scientific rigor. Is it possible to conduct an ethical Ebola vaccine trial on humans? Could a control group of people be left untreated? Could healthy people be vaccinated so as to expose them later to a deadly virus? The World Health Organization has declared an international health emergency, and the Food and Drug Administration has waived many of the usual safeguards on such studies to accelerate marketing of vaccines.

A group of Canadian and American scientists stand to become very rich from the commercialization of Ebola vaccines. On the Canadian side, as early as 2012 “Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada” patented (PCT/CA2009/000070) the three antibodies in the ZMab mixture, and the scientists, including Gary Kobinger and Jeffrey Turner, formed a company called DEFYRUS, which began to receive large contracts from Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC). The stated interest of DRDC is “to defend and protect Canada’s interests at home and abroad.” On the American side, a San Diego company called Mapp Biopharmaceutical (MappBio), led by Gene Olinger of the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, began to receive large contracts from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). In July 2013, DEFYRUS and MappBio announced that they would combine efforts on “mAb [monoclonal antibody] development for treatment of viral hemorrhagic fever,” and in July 2014, DEFYRUS licensed its patent to MappBio’s commercialization partner: a San Diego company called Leaf Biopharmaceutical, Inc. Together with a company called Kentucky Bioprocessing, they plan to produce the components for ZMAb in tobacco plants and commercialize it.

Interestingly, between 2012 and 2013 the DEFYRUS description changed from “a private, biotechnology company that collaborates with public health and biodefense R&D partners in the United States, United Kingdom, Asia and Canada…” to “a Canadian private, life sciences biodefence company that collaborates with military and public health R&D partners in the United States, United Kingdom, Asia and Canada.” Regardless of all the altruistic talk about saving Africans, the major market will be the US Army, which is the world’s biggest consumer of vaccines: especially its AFRICOM branch.

By far the biggest Ebola threat is the possibility that a highly efficacious vaccine might be developed, on the quiet, in association with “defense” concerns. Such a vaccine would make possible the weaponization of Ebola. In particular, a vaccinated army could advance on a region that had been deliberately contaminated. Defense, after all, is a euphemism for offense in our Orwellian world, and this threat from Ebola is far more tangible than a Zombie Apocalypse.

Dady Chery is the co-Editor in Chief at News Junkie Post.