22

Clouds of Secrecy

On spraying and sociopathy
22

What do these dozen subjects have in common?

  1. Childhood vaccination

  2. Covid vaccination

  3. Fluoride

  4. Glyphosate

  5. Secret Societies

  6. Root Canals

  7. Carbon Dioxide

  8. Allergy

  9. Pearl Harbour

  10. Tetanus

  11. Lyme Disease

  12. Gulf War Syndrome

I’m going with sociopathy (psychopathy).


0:00
-40:22

Share

This from Greenwood in 180 Degrees:

Moral insanity was the name used to describe sociopaths and psychopaths before the latter two terms were conjured up. It is unfortunate the original terminology fell out of use as it perfectly sums up the predicament humanity faces ... how to deal with those with no morals and no empathy. It is now called antisocial personality disorder but this just appears to further soften the nomenclature.

To differentiate between them, it could be said that those with sociopathic tendencies have a weak conscience and don't really care about others. A full-on sociopath has no empathy and no conscience and the psychopath, as well as having both of those traits, actually takes pleasure from seeing others suffer. The actual clinical definitions will vary but that seems as good a segmentation as any.

For the purposes of simplicity, rather than explicitly differentiate between the two, we will put both into the same category. Thus, the psychopaths become a subset of the sociopaths and therefore the term sociopath covers both cases. You can decide which of the two we are dealing with in each particular example or, if others are being quoted, then the term that they have selected will prevail.

One of the problems with sociopaths is actually spotting them in the wild. They can be rather good at hiding their true intentions as many are both pathological and enthusiastic liars. There are lists of 25 key traits to look out for, including qualities such as lack of remorse, shame or guilt, a grandiose sense of self, superficial charm, glibness, manipulativeness, and an incapacity for love. But most people, who aren't clinical psychologists, don't run around with a check list in their head.

--

"Now, what beliefs did I hold that made me a victim of a psychopath? The first and most obvious one is that I truly believed that deep inside, all people are basically "good" and that they "want to do good, to experience good things, think good thoughts, and make decisions with good results  " As it happens, this is not true as I - and everyone involved in our research group - learned to our sorrow."

The above quote comes from Polish author and psychologist Andrzej Lobaczewski in his seminal book, Political Ponerology-A Science On The Nature Of Evil. Lobaczewski and his colleagues had the misfortune to live through both the Nazi and Communist occupations of their country (he said the latter was far worse). The script and research for his book was destroyed at least twice before making the light of day. I strongly recommend reading all of it as it gives a unique insight into how evil functions and spreads. He proposes a framework of how to deal with psychopathic systems and suggests psychopaths are probably best categorised as “a different type of human.”

@Inversionism posted the video in the masthead above on Twitter, with this:

"This next story is so unbelievable we didn't think it could possibly be true, but after receiving thousands of records and declassified reports from the army, it's confirmed that during the cold war, that the US military conducted secret tests on unsuspecting people of St Louis."

I hope everyone understands the full weight and gravity of what's being disclosed here. The US military sprayed an obscenely toxic radioactive chemical over a part of St Louis with 10,000 low-income people, 70% of them being children under the age of 12.

Their reasoning? They just wanted to do an experiment to test "dispersal patterns and the geographic range of chemical or biological weapons", nothing more. Instead of using something that is harmless to test the range and dispersal, they used an actual radioactive bioweapon called Cadmium sulfide, and allowed a bunch of low-income children and other people to breath in tons of cadmium sulfide all day every day without warning.

They also put additional sprayers on top of buildings and pumped it into populated low-income areas. So basically, a ton of low-income poor people were subjected to a biological warfare experiment against their will, with many suffering as a result and not knowing that their government poisoned them. Sound familiar?

The only correction I will make in the above is that it was Zinc Cadmium Sulfide[i] and not Cadmium Sulfide. In truth a distinction without a meaningful difference.

This from the book Clouds of Secrecy (more on this later).

The further data mentioned in the last paragraph would be sought in later tests over Minneapolis and elsewhere; plans were already under way for additional spraying.

Joint Quarterly Report No. 4: From Minneapolis to St. Louis

The other available report in this early series of tests covered activities from April through June 1953. During this period, “necessary equipment was shipped from Minneapolis to St. Louis,” where zinc cadmium sulfide was sprayed over residential, commercial, and downtown areas. “Of the 35 releases which comprised afternoon, predawn, and mostly nighttime operations, two were made on a citywide scale.”3 As with the Minneapolis tests, the administrators of the St. Louis experiments were concerned that the public should neither question nor challenge their activities. Here too the test administrators sought the help of local officials. The report glosses over the point that at least one official apparently resisted (and perhaps was dismissed), saying only that “minor difficulties with the Park Commissioner were ironed out with the completion of the change in city administration.” It noted further that “the public showed considerable interest” in some equipment, although “no incidents of consequence occurred” (p. 18).

Despite contacts by the test administrators with St. Louis officials, there is no evidence that these officials were better informed than their counterparts in Minneapolis about the true nature of the test and its potential dangers.

The video reminded me of a new Substack I’ve been reading Agent131711. Here are just some of the government’s secret spraying and human experimentation:

  • ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 1949: Operation Green Run released iodine-131 and xenon-133 into the atmosphere near the Hanford site in Washington, which contaminated a 500,000-acre (2,000 km2) area, containing three small towns.

  • MILITARY 1949 (-1969): Military admits to previously conducting 239 open air biological warfare experiments on citizens without their knowledge

  • MILITARY 1950 (-1960's): USA Army OPERATION LAC secretly sprayed unknowing cities with zinc cadmium sulfide; Inhalation causes LOSS OF SMELL, FEVER, respiratory issues, cancer, LOW SPERM COUNT, headaches, lung & kidney damage, pneumonia, bronchitis, decreased birth rate, DEATH.

  • MILITARY 1950 (-1952's): Operation Dew took place off the southeast coast of the United States, including near Georgia, and North and South Carolina. Operation Dew consisted of two sets of trials, Dew I and Dew II. The tests involved the aerosolized release of 250 pounds (110 kg) of fluorescent particles from a minesweeper off the coast.

  • MILITARY 1954: Between July 9, 1953 and Aug 1, 1953, six kilograms of zinc cadmium sulfide was sprayed onto unsuspecting citizens of Winnipeg from U.S. Army planes.

  • MILITARY 1954: Operation Sea Spray, Navy secretly sprayed Serratia marcescens & Bacillus globigii bacteria all over San Francisco

  • MILITARY 1954: Operation Ozone ALSO ALMOST SCRUBBED FROM THE INTERNET. Operation Ozone occurred in Nassau, in 1954 in which 5 open-air trials of dangerous bacteria, anthrax, pathogens and viruses had been carried out at sea by spraying aerosols.

  • MILITARY 1954: Operation Big Itch was a U.S. entomological warfare field test using fleas to determine their coverage and survivability as a vector for biological agents. The tests were conducted at Dugway Proving Ground in 1954

  • MILITARY 1954: Operation May Day Savannah, Georgia. These tests were designed to reveal information about the dispersal of yellow fever mosquitoes in an urban area

  • MILITARY 1954: Operation Drop-Kick The Chemical Corps released female mosquitoes into a cooperative residential area of Savannah, Georgia, and then estimated how many mosquitoes entered houses and bit people. Within a day, the mosquitoes had bitten many people. <---- This makes absolutely no sense being that the citizens were not informed and there was no known reporting process established.

  • MILITARY 1955: Operation Big Buzz dispersing (from aircraft) more yellow fever mosquitoes

  • MILITARY 1955: The CIA, in conjunction with the US Army, wanted to test infection-by-transmission in human populations, so they released more contaminated bacteria over Tampa Bay, Florida.

  • MILITARY 1960's: The Military began testing LSD as a bioweapon internationally. PROJECT DERBY HAT was run in Asia and PROJECT THIRD CHANCE was conducted on European citizens.

  • MILITARY 1962-1983: The Military was conducting Project Stormfury which consisted of multiple GeoEngineering sub-programs:

  • MILITARY HUMAN EXPERIMENTS 1965: DEVIL HOLE 1: The tests occurred in the summer of 1965 at the Gerstle River test site near Fort Greeley, Alaska using Sarin, a powerful nerve gas that causes a choking, thrashing death.

  • MILITARY HUMAN EXPERIMENTS 1965: DEVIL HOLE 2: These tests occurred on the Gerstle River. Military released “VX” is one of the deadliest nerve agents known and is persistent in the environment because it is a sticky liquid that evaporates slowly.

  • MILITARY HUMAN EXPERIMENTS 1965: BIG TOM: Was a test that included spraying bacteria over the Hawaiian island of Oahu to simulate a biological attack on an island compound, and to develop tactics for such an attack. The test used a bacteria called Bacillus globigii, later labeled a pathogen by the FDA.

  • MILITARY HUMAN EXPERIMENTS 1966: Operation SHAD Chemicals sprayed on unknowing USA military. Some of the nerve agents/chemicals included VX nerve gas, Tabun gas, Sarin, Soman and the marker chemicals zinc sulfide, cadmium sulfide and QNB. All done without consent.

  • MILITARY HUMAN EXPERIMENTS 1966: Back in 1953, the US Army sprayed six kilograms of zinc cadmium sulfide was sprayed onto unsuspecting citizens of Winnipeg from U.S. Army planes. In 1966 they returned and repeated the experiments in Alberta

  • MILITARY HUMAN EXPERIMENTS 1966 (-1969): Uncontrolled release of ticks that had been fed DISEASE AGENTS. Releases occurred in Virginia and Montana.

  • MILITARY 1967: Congress met to discuss Weather Modification, which involves spraying (toxic) chemicals into the sky and the use of high frequencies (weapons, Ref: HAARP) H.R. 9212 & H.J. Res. 688

  • MILITARY HUMAN EXPERIMENTS 1967-1968: RAPID TAN 1, RAPID TAN 2 & RAPID TAN 3: The tests used sarin and VX, as well as the nerve agents tabun and soman, at the British chemical weapons facility in Porton Down, England. Tests at the Suffield Defence Research Establishment in Ralston, Canada, included tabun and soman. (note: Soman will be used again, in 2004, during a secret spray Operation that took place on the citizens of Salt Lake City, Utah)

  • MILITARY 1979: CIA conducted an open-air biological warfare experiment in 1955 near Tampa, Florida, and elsewhere in Florida with whooping cough bacteria. It was alleged that the experiment tripled the whooping cough infections in Florida to over one-thousand cases and caused whooping cough deaths in the state to increase from one to 12 over the previous year, according to The San Francisco Chronicle

  • MILITARY 1980s - current: All along the Military has used Forest Fires as a weapon. These fires are created by spraying flammable materials, specifically over forested areas. The plants / trees then absorb the materials via their roots and become, essentially, “ticking time bombs” that will go ablaze with a spark:

  • MILITARY 1987: Under oath, the Department of Defense admits that, despite a treaty that bans biological “research”, they are currently operating 127 facilities and Universities across the nation.

  • MILITARY 1994: Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report that states that for at least 50 years, the Department of Defense has been running secret experiments on the citizens of the USA which include nerve gas, mustard gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens and drugs.

  • MILITARY 1996 – The US Military creates a document titled “Owning the Weather in 2025”, which outlines spraying chemicals into the sky and using high frequencies.

  • HUMAN EXPERIMENTS 2004: NARAC is a gov agency that oversees the RELEASE of chemicals into the atmosphere. Secretly, on 6-18/19-04 they released a CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENT (ARAC SOMAN) onto the citizens of Salt Lake City UT causing severe harm, including thousands of deaths

  • MILITARY 2005: March 10th & 14th, 2005, the gov spent hours secretly releasing Propanol, PFAS and other chemicals on the citizens of Manhattan, NY, supposedly, to study biological attacks. Release locations and times shown below. Each release ran for 30-60 mins.

  • 2005 (March 10th & 14th): The Madison Square Garden Tracer Study: the gov spent hours secretly releasing Propanol, PFAS and other chemicals on the citizens of Manhattan, NY, supposedly, to study biological attacks. Release locations and times shown below. Each release ran for 30-60 mins.

  • 2004-2007: More atmospheric chemical release experiments run on NY citizens, this time the gov used a variety of chemical gasses.

  • 2003: “DHS” 10 DAY experiment was run on the citizens of NYC, in which different chemical agents were secretly released into the sky by the gov. We know the Salt Lake City study used deadly nerve agents, however this NYC study fails to state the chemicals

I’ll let you catch your breath, after all of that.

Now I’ll ask, “What’s the point here?”.

First, these operations have names, and can be searched and verified, you don’t need to take anyone’s word for it. As Jimmy Dore would say, “please do your own research…it’s called reading”.

Second, and this is the main point for me, is that the people that fiddled with the genes of most of the world over the last two years, are the same people that poured mercury and aluminium into the blood stream, and brains, of almost every baby in the world, who are the same people that put fluoride in your water, costing you and your kids a not immaterial number of IQ points, who are the same people that did all of the above spraying.

It is impossible for non-sociopaths to understand sociopaths.

It’s also virtually impossible for non-sociopaths to understand that what they are learning, teaching and doing within industrially created frameworks, built by sociopaths, are designed to have non-sociopaths produce sociopathic outcomes.

This is our challenge, coming to terms with what those that steer our government’s instruments want and are prepared to do to get it.

These are the same people that told you about the clear liquid in the syringe being safe and effective.

They are also the same people that told you that everything in this article is a conspiracy theory.

They are also the people that told you that your child’s allergies are likely because of her big head.

They are also the same people that told you that your autistic child, banging his head against the wall, is that way probably because you didn’t give him enough attention when he was a baby. The Refrigerator Mother Theory.

I’ll stop…I’m sure you get the picture. Sociopaths lie. Sociopaths are duplicitous.

Now back to the spraying of shit above our heads…

This all connects with the book Clouds of Secrecy – The Army’s Germ Warfare Tests over Populated Areas by Leonard Cole.

Before I hand over to Leonard Cole, I want to give the second last word to Agent131711:

... and this is what we know about. What I didn't mention in the list above is that these secret experiments, on average, take 20-40+ YEARS to come to light.

Additionally, when the chemicals are sprayed, they cause illness. The illness is labeled an "outbreak". The outbreak then allows the CDC to step in and give it a name. Then Big Pharma makes a vaccine. Then the vaccine is added to the childhood vaccine schedule. Then the vaccine makes people sick, the sickness is labeled an outbreak, the CDC steps in, a vaccine is made, another secret military experiment happens, an outbreak occurs... do you see the pattern?

They cause the problem then sell us the solution, but the solution causes more problems, which leads to them selling us more solutions. It's literal lunacy.

Now, here are the Preface and Introduction to Clouds of Secrecy, with thanks to Leonard Cole.


Preface

THE NOVEMBER 17, 1986 issue of Time magazine carried a curious story about the origin of AIDS. It cited foreign press reports that the disease “is the result of U.S. germ-warfare experiments gone wild.” United States officials blamed the Soviets for spreading unfounded rumors, and AIDS experts thought the proposition farfetched. Yet, as the article indicated, some respected doctors would not rule out the possibility. Their skepticism addresses the frustration felt by many about understanding a disease that seems to have come from nowhere. It also reflects a simmering disquiet about the nature of the United States biological warfare program.

The army has engaged in biological warfare research since World War II, and its official position is that no one outside its laboratories has ever been at risk. Contrary evidence shows the claim to be hollow. Even if the AIDS/germ warfare allegation proves groundless, other army experiments have endangered large segments of the public.

This book is about these experiments, tests in which clouds of bacteria and chemicals have been sprayed over populated areas. It 1 examines the nature of the tests, their rationale, and the effects on the exposed human populations.

My inquiries took me considerable distances, from a hamlet in northern Scotland where American scientists once helped perform biological weapons tests, to Fort Detrick, Maryland, headquarters of the United States biological warfare program. I spoke with dozens of government officials and scientists who have been involved with the testing program. I also met with citizens whose lives it has affected. Many live near forbidden areas that remain contaminated by bacteria from earlier tests. Some have sued the government, claiming that the army’s tests caused illness and death to family members.

The factual story unfolded from interviews as well as documents and court proceedings. But the interviews revealed another dimension. They underscored how intense and partisan is the issue of biological warfare testing. Scientists and officials who are associated with the U.S. biological warfare program make no apologies for testing in populated areas. Their reference point is national security. They believe the Soviet Union is violating the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention that prohibits the development, production, or stockpiling of biological weaponry. The Soviet threat, accordingly, should be addressed with additional defensive research that includes open air vulnerability tests.

Many scholars and scientists believe that claims about Soviet violations are exaggerated or untrue. They challenge the validity of the evidence, and argue that expanding the United States program may itself lead to violations of the Convention. In any case, they consider open air tests involving unsuspecting citizens to be unwarranted and reprehensible.

The two sides’ distrust of each other echoes through the remarks by members of each. After a genial interview, a scientist at Fort Detrick, who had long worked in the biological warfare program, said, “You know, I wouldn’t have taken this time with you if I didn’t think you were one of us.”

The comment made me uneasy. He evidently had interpreted my eagerness to learn about the army’s vulnerability testing program as an endorsement of the enterprise. I demurred from asking what he meant by “one of us,” but emphasized my intention to write fairly. While agreeing with the need for national defense, I said that I could understand why people might be critical of the open air tests.

Some time later a community activist, who is convinced that the army is engaged in illegal biological weapons research, said to me, ‘Tm glad you’re on our side.” I felt no more comfortable about being grafted to this side than the other. My uncritical inquiries again / apparently led a conversation partner to presume that I agreed with his position. Whatever anyone’s suspicions about the army’s current activities, claims about illegal actions are gratuitous without evidence.

Of central interest to this book, however, is the army’s position that open air testing is not illegal, and the fact that it is now taking place.

The interviews revealed a powerful sense of “us” versus “them.” The atmosphere is fraternity-like, clubby. Members of either side are wary of outsiders. Probably nothing the army says or does about biological warfare research will allay the suspicions of its most dedicated critics. But others remain understandably skeptical because of misleading statements by army spokesmen in the past, and confusion about current policies. Several questions about the U.S. biological warfare program remain unanswered, including the extent of people’s exposure to bacteria during tests. The army’s interests, and the nation’s, would be served by dispelling suspicions and addressing such issues fully and candidly.

Many people in and out of government shared their wisdom with me. Some are cited by name in the course of the narrative, many more are not, but I am grateful to all. Joan Aron, Ruth Cole, Norman Covert, Clifford Grobstein, Edward Nevin 3d, Jeremy Paxman, Robert Sinsheimer, Lawrence Ware, and Arthur Westing were especially helpful. They provided documents, background material, or insightful comments about the manuscript, and for their help I express my debt and appreciation.

Clouds of Secrecy: Introduction

DURING THE 1970s, Americans learned that for decades they had been serving as experimental animals for agencies of their government. The Central Intelligence Agency had secretly been dropping mind-altering drugs into the drinks of citizens to watch their reactions. The U.S. Public Health Service fooled syphilitic blacks into thinking they were undergoing treatment when in fact they were being observed as their disease worsened. In battlefield tests, soldiers were marched to nuclear explosion sites, where they were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. For these experiments thousands of Americans served as unsuspecting guinea pigs, and many suffered illness and death as a consequence. But the scope of these projects was dwarfed by an army program to assess the country’s vulnerability to biological weapons.

For at least two decades, the army secretly exposed millions of Americans to huge clouds of bacteria and chemical particles. The organisms and particles were sprayed over populated areas to observe their paths, in preparation for an attack by the Soviets with more lethal germs. But while the army was measuring air currents and survivability of the bacteria, no precautions were taken to protect the health and welfare of the millions of people exposed.

Like the other experiments that government agencies had been conducting, the public found out about the germ warfare tests through newspaper accounts in the 1970s. Like the other experiments, these tests were no longer taking place at the time of public disclosure. But unlike the other experiments, germ warfare testing is not merely a matter of history. The possibility of spraying the public again has been left open. An army spokesman testified in 1977 at congressional hearings that the army might resume testing when it finds an “area of vulnerability that takes additional tests.”1 Such an area evidently has been found. A 1986 army report reveals that open air testing is taking place again, at least on a limited basis.2

Since testing is conducted secretly, we do not know how many people may be exposed, or what plans exist for further testing. Comments and actions by government officials have offered scant comfort. In 1983, spokesmen for the biological warfare laboratories at Fort Detrick, Maryland, would not acknowledge that vulnerability tests were underway, but one official added, “of course we can’t tell all of our secrets.”

In 1984 the army sought to expand its biological warfare testing facilities in Utah in a manner that seemed intended to draw minimal outside attention. In an apparent effort lo avoid congressional hearings, it tried to “reprogram” funds that had been designated for other purposes. When the issue became public, Pentagon officials agreed to a court order to suspend plans pending preparation of an environmental impact statement.

Alexander M. Capron, who served as executive director of the President’s Commission on Bioethics, said that under existing rules the army could be spraying over heavily populated areas, and the public would not know.3 Capron’s agency, the only federal commission concerned with ethical problems involving research on humans, was dissolved in 1983.

Compounding the uncertainty is the fact that in 1986 the Reagan administration’s budget for chemical and biological warfare exceeded

$1 billion, up from $160 million in 1980, although its details were largely secret. The government’s interest has been fueled by alleged Soviet violations of treaty commitments. The Soviet Union and the United States signed the 1925 Geneva Protocol that prohibits the use of chemical or biological weapons, and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention that prohibits the development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons. Only activities related to prophylactic and defensive measures are permissible.4

The administration has claimed that an anthrax epidemic in the Russian city of Sverdlovsk in 1979 was caused by an accidental release of anthrax bacilli that had been illegally stockpiled. It has accused the Soviets and their surrogates of waging war with biological toxins (“yellow rain”) in Afghanistan and Southeast Asia. Most recently it said that the Soviet Union is illegally engaged in a program to develop weapons through genetic engineering. All these claims have been challenged by scientific experts, as will be discussed in the course of this study. But the charges have heightened concerns about America’s defensive capabilities. Programs have been accelerated to develop vaccines and protective gear. Most significantly, recommendations that had been made in the early 1980s to revitalize the army’s open air vulnerability testing program are being carried out.

The Uniqueness of Biological Warfare

Biological weaponry is often lumped with chemical agents, like mustard gas, which was first used with devastating effects in World War I, and nerve gas, which the Soviet Union and the United States currently stockpile in large quantities. Since this book focuses on biological warfare testing, the relationship between the two weapons systems should be clarified. They do have characteristics in common. Their effectiveness would likely depend on meteorological conditions; both are seen as more nasty, terrifying, and uncontrollable than conventional weapons systems. The Pentagon links the two under a single budgetary category, and this also blurs their differences. But beside the distinctive treatment accorded to biological weapons by international treaty, they are unique in other ways.

A biological weapon usually connotes a microorganism used for hostile purposes. Biological agents are generally more potent weight-for-weight than chemical agents because they can reproduce and become more lethal with the passage of time. As an army general who was involved with both systems observed, “chemical agents will cover only tens of square miles, but biological agents can blanket hundreds of thousands of square miles.”5

If biological agents, such as bacteria or viruses, become established in the environment, they may persist for years. Unlike most chemicals, biological agents cannot be separated from a natural habitat, and they may not be recognized until after they have caused widespread infection. The likelihood of early warning and detection of their presence is virtually nil. Biological weaponry is also much cheaper than other weapons systems. Experts told a United Nations panel in 1969 that “for a large-scale operation against a civilian population, casualties might cost about $2,000 per square kilometer with conventional weapons, $800 with nuclear weapons, $600 with nerve-gas weapons, and $1 with biological weapons.”6

Thus, biological agents are cheaper and their effects are potentially more insidious, more widespread, longer lasting, and less controllable than those of chemicals. As in nuclear war, there seems to be no genuinely effective defense against a biological warfare attack, especially for a large civilian population. Yet trying to develop one has been part of the rationale behind the army’s vulnerability testing program.

Learning about the Tests

Hearings held by the Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources in 1971 revealed the awesome scope of the earlier germ-warfare testing program. Army spokesmen acknowledged that 239 populated areas from coast to coast had been blanketed with bacteria between 1949 and 1969. Tests involved covering areas of Alaska and Hawaii and the cities of San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, and Panama City in Florida. Some tests were more focused, such as those in which bacteria were sprayed onto the Pennsylvania Turnpike or into the New York City subway system.7

The hearings further revealed that the incidence of illnesses suddenly increased in some areas near the tests. When Senator Richard Schweiker asked if anyone had been monitoring the health effects on the population in the test areas, army witnesses were momentarily mute. Brigadier General William Augerson finally volunteered that he was unaware of any monitoring system. The army “made an assumption of the innocence of these organisms,” he explained.8

Distinguished scientists testified at the hearings that the tests were inappropriate and dangerous. They agreed that exposure to heavy concentrations of even apparently innocuous organisms can cause illness. In the words of Dr. J. Mehsen Joseph, director of Laboratories Administration for the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the tests “constituted an unjustifiable health hazard for a particular segment of the population.”9

Since the army failed to monitor the health of the human population that was targeted during the tests, we shall never know how much disease and death they may have caused. Based on available information and the word of government officials, the public can feel little confidence about protection from resumed outdoor testing. This time, however, because information has become available about previous tests, the public can have a better understanding of the possible consequences.

One important source of information comes from testimony at a trial in 1981. Joined by his family, Edward J. Nevin 3d sued the United States government, alleging that bacteria called Serratia marcescens, sprayed by the army over San Francisco in 1950, had killed his grandfather. The trial offered an unusual opportunity to peek behind the veil of secrecy that long had hidden the army’s testing program.

The spraying of San Francisco with army bacteria was typical of the secret tests over populated areas that the army conducted for years. The trial brought to light previously classified documents that had lain buried in the tombs of army archives. Former military and scientific officials who had administered the testing program testified that they would be spraying today if still in charge. To gather data for national security, their testimony shows, was their overriding interest. In the process, they overlooked evidence that the tests may have been causing disease.

The officials seemed to have convinced themselves that certain facts were illusory or unimportant, because they did not want to believe them. To be sure, such mind-sets are not unique to biological warfare officials — all human beings are capable of self-delusion and dissimulation. But these characteristics are particularly unsettling when exhibited by authorities whose power can affect the lives of many citizens. Several other incidents in recent history serve as reminders.

Members of the Atomic Energy Commission secretly decided in the 1950s that the public would have to learn to live with radioactive fallout from atomic tests — even though the public had no idea it was being exposed. Similarly, when 6,300 sheep suddenly died in 1968 following chemical warfare tests at the nearby proving ground in Utah, Pentagon spokesmen denied responsibility. Only after prolonged congressional and public pressure for an investigation did the army reverse itself a year later and admit guilt. In another instance, the Public Health Service had been engaged in a 40-year project that involved observing but withholding treatment from syphilitic blacks. After reviewing the propriety of the project, Dr. J. Lawton Smith, a physician-consultant to the Public Health Service, urged in 1969 that the experiment be continued. “You will never have another study like this; take advantage of it,” he said.10

More recently, members of the Environmental Protection Agency were found to have neglected the agency’s mandate to protect the public. They had systematically ignored statutory requirements to control industrial pollution, evidently for political purposes. When the scandal surfaced in 1983, more than twenty of the agency’s highest officials, including its director, were forced to resign. Meanwhile, information appears with regularity about newly discerned hazards wrought by miscalculation or wishful thinking of people in authority-from damage caused by acid rain to life-threatening toxic waste dumps; from unsafe nuclear power plants to growing accumulations of radioactive waste with no place for permanent storage.

If one grants even the most honorable motivation to the officials in charge, such incidents reflect the human capability to confuse good intentions with harmful actions. Biological warfare testing may be understood as part of a syndrome in which the welfare of the citizenry can become hostage to this confusion. Whether in the name of national security, ideology, or scientific progress, policies have been implemented that disregard the safety of the American public. In this respect the biological warfare testing program has not been unique. Only in its scope, its exposure of many millions of citizens to army bacteria, did the testing program assume a scale beyond others. Now, because of congressional hearings, the Freedom of Information Act, the Nevin trial, and interviews, a systematic exploration of the issue has become possible. We are able to assess the legacies of the tests and their effects on people. We explore the attitudes of those who were in charge of the biological warfare program in the past, and those in charge today. Such a study tells not only about the testing program, but about this nation’s political culture.

The Design of Study

The book is divided into four sections. Part One, comprising this and the following chapter, establishes the setting that led to the first series of tests in the 1950s and 1960s, and to the current interest in renewed outdoor testing. Chapter 2 recalls examples of biological warfare in the past, the development of a United States biological arsenal during World War II, and the rationale of the testing program that began after the war.

Part Two, comprised of Chapters 3 through 6, explores the legacies and legitimacy of the past tests, and raises questions about the appropriateness of resumed open air testing. The section begins with a discussion about Gruinard Island, which remains uninhabitable because of contamination from biological warfare experiments performed four decades earlier. The history and current activities at Fort Detrick are then reviewed, and base officials are cited who maintain that the testing program was and is safe. Chapter 5 reviews the scientific literature, which questions the army’s contention that the bacteria used in its tests over populated areas are harmless. The final chapter in the section assesses in detail the spraying of several cities, based on reports of the tests that became available in recent years.

The third section of the book, Chapters 7 and 8, recounts the spraying of San Francisco with germs in 1950, and the 1981 trial brought by the Nevin family in relation to that test. This section lays out documents about the testing program that had not been previously available. It is highlighted by the trial testimony of army officials who ran the germ warfare tests. Their remarks reveal a mind-set that helps explain the urge to test, whether in the past or present.

Part Four, the largest section of the book, bears the most immediate implications. It explores events since 1980 that have led to an expanding biological warfare research program in the United States. Chapters 9 and 10 review the administration’s contention that the Soviet Union is engaged in illegal biological warfare activities. The chapters examine the “yellow rain” issue and the relationship between genetic engineering and the military.

Chapters 11 and 12 survey the army’s response to the alleged Soviet violations, particularly as it concerns the issue of testing. As the army enlarges its biological defense program, the push toward extensive testing over populated areas has gathered momentum. Chapter 11 discusses this trend. It cites reports in 1984 and 1985 by government commissions that call for field testing with bacterial and chemical agents to assess detection techniques, and a 1986 army report revealing that such testing is now underway. The book concludes with a discussion of the ethics of spraying unsuspecting citizens with bacteria, and the need for protection against such activities.

To the extent that newspaper investigators, congressional representatives, and citizens like the Nevin family prompted exposure about the earlier tests, they express an essential value of a democratic society. It is in tribute to this spirit, which includes a call for openness about the present program, that we approach the subject of this study.


Lies are Unbekoming is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Share

Thanks for being here.

Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to help covid vaccine injured Australians.

I am always looking for good, personal GMC, covid and childhood vaccination stories. You can write to me privately: unbekoming@outlook.com

If you are Covid vaccine injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment

If you want to understand and “see” what baseline human health looks like, watch (and share) this 21 minutes

If you want to help someone, give them a book. Official Stories by Liam Scheff. Point them to a safe chapter (here and here), and they will find their way to vaccination.

Here are three eBooks I have produced so far:

FREE eBook: A letter to my two adult kids - Vaccines and the free spike protein

FREE eBook: The Climate™

FREE eBook: What is a woman? - “We don’t know yet.”


[i] Cadmium sulfide (CdS) and zinc cadmium sulfide (ZnCdS) are not the same compounds; they have different chemical compositions, properties, and applications.

Chemical Composition

  • Cadmium Sulfide (CdS): Composed of one cadmium ion (Cd) and one sulfur ion (S).

  • Zinc Cadmium Sulfide (ZnCdS): A mixed compound containing zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd), and sulfur (S).

Properties

  • Cadmium Sulfide (CdS): It is a yellow solid and a direct bandgap semiconductor. It is commonly used in photovoltaic cells and light sensors.

  • Zinc Cadmium Sulfide (ZnCdS): The properties of ZnCdS can be tuned by varying the ratio of zinc to cadmium. It is often used in optoelectronic devices and phosphors.

Applications

  • Cadmium Sulfide (CdS): Used in solar cells, light sensors, and as a pigment in paints.

  • Zinc Cadmium Sulfide (ZnCdS): Used in flat-panel displays, photovoltaic modules, and other optoelectronic devices.

Toxicity

Both compounds contain cadmium, which is toxic and can be harmful if ingested, inhaled, or in contact with the skin. However, the presence of zinc in ZnCdS may slightly alter its toxicity profile.

Summary

While both compounds contain cadmium and sulfur, the presence of zinc in zinc cadmium sulfide distinguishes it from cadmium sulfide. They have different chemical structures, properties, and uses. Therefore, they are not the same.

22 Comments
Authors
Unbekoming