Does DNA Sequencing Show that Ebola Is Naturally-Occurring?
In response to bioweapons expert’s Dr. Francis Boyle’s conviction that this strain of Ebola escaped from a biowarfare laboratory in West Africa, Empty Wheel’s Jim White argues that DNA sequencing shows that Ebola is naturally occurring.
Dr. Boyle sent us the following email, responding to White’s critique:
1.The primary problem with this entire Harvard study is this: These results they admit come out of the Kenema BSL4 Lab itself which was up to its eyeballs in doing this dirty biowarfare work there before it was shut down. So they did this work and then shut down the lab. Dead labs tell no tales.
As I see it, the biowarriors at BSL4 Kenema are exonerating themselves by means of this “study.” This is basically an exercise in Cover Your Biowarrior Butts.
2. If all this transmission has been done by bats, then why did the US military set up their first ebola testing center in Liberia in an abandoned lab filled with bats?
3. “Ebola is a poor candidate for either biological warfare or terrorism, compared with viruses such as smallpox, which is highly infectious, or the hardy, easily dispersible bacteria that causes anthrax.”
We have been working on ebola for biowarfare purposes since about 1977 and continuously. We have aerosolized ebola at Fort Detrick, a telltale sign of weaponization. We have also weaponized anthrax too. And the Russians and the Americans are keeping smallpox alive for weaponization purposes as well. The USA has at least two biowarfare weapons that I know of: ebola and anthrax. And they very well could have more. We have spent $79 billion since 9/11 on developing biowarfare weapons, billions before that, and we continue to spend billions on weaponzing more of them.
[Note from Washington’s Blog: the Army Times reportedin August: “Filoviruses like Ebola have been of interest to the Pentagon since the late 1970s, mainly because Ebola and its fellow viruses have high mortality rates … and its stable nature in aerosol make it attractive as a potential biological weapon.”]
4. “This means that these outbreaks arose from different “jumps” from the animal reservoir to the human population. The similarity between samples from the current outbreak confirm that it originated from a single jump, and since that time the disease has spread exclusively from human to human. This is different from previous outbreaks, which had spread via multiple zoonotic events.”
If there were different “jumps” then we should have seen a pattern of “jumping” ebola outbreaks continuously over time and space from Zaire in 1976 to West Africa in 2013. There is no such pattern. That’s 3500 kilometers and no “jumping” ebola outbreaks.
5. Now to the Science article: “Phylogenetic comparison to all 20 genomes from earlier outbreaks suggests that the 2014 West African virus likely spread from central Africa within the past decade. Rooting the phylogeny using divergence from other ebolavirus genomes is problematic ….”
Once again, if it spread from central Africa within the past decade, we would have seen the “spread” of Ebola outbreaks during the past decade as it made its way to West Africa. We have not. And notice right out at the outset they admit their basic methodology here is “problematic.” That is precisely correct. The entire study they admit themselves is “problematic.” It sure is “problematic” Basically the US biowarriors at Kenema are covering their own rear ends. That’s the problematique of this “study”—cover-up
6. “[correcting 21 likely sequencing errors in the latter …]”
This is absolute utter bull-twaddle right there. Notice they admit that they are “fixing” their results right there. No question about it: Correcting. Yeah, correcting to produce the results that they wanted in order to cover up this entire matter.
They admit right here at the beginning of the study that they fixed the results and that their methodology is “problematic”. The rest is pure and utter bull-twaddle based upon fixed results and a problematic methodology. It would be a waste of my time to continue analyzing an article based upon admittedly fixed results with an admittedly “problematic” methodology.