0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 10/1/26 at 9:34 am to BoarEd
This may not be a clear "Fauci=Bad" story. At a minimum, I would hold off until seeing more of the evidence. It may have been more that Fauci was critical of aerosolizing Ebola. Here what one source (I think it was Yahoo News) quoted from his diaries:
"Dr. Fauci wrote in his diary in March 2016: "What idiots those guys at (the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases) are. This should have been a classified experiment that never should have been done in the first place."
Rand Paul has every right to hold Fauci to account regarding the COVID response, but is he stretching things on Ebola?
"Dr. Fauci wrote in his diary in March 2016: "What idiots those guys at (the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases) are. This should have been a classified experiment that never should have been done in the first place."
Rand Paul has every right to hold Fauci to account regarding the COVID response, but is he stretching things on Ebola?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 9:37 am to BoarEd
quote:
What could be the possible benefit of aerosolizing one of the deadliest viruses in the world if not trying to kill as many people as possible?
The argument he will make is that you aerosolize it in a lab to develop treatments for it because china and russia might use it as a weapon in future
We have done similar biowarfare scenario planning shite since ww2
I dont agree with it but we have and likely will continue to do stupid shite like this and play god with pathogens
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 9:38 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 9:40 am to N.O. via West-Cal
So it sounds like the experiments actually happened. It wasn't just discussed, but ebola was indeed aerosolized by our own military. Good to know.
For fricks sake.
For fricks sake.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 9:42 am to BoarEd
Doctor Death
Posted on 10/1/26 at 9:42 am to N.O. via West-Cal
Yeah, that quote seems to complicate the story. There’s also a distinction between exposing a research animal to aerosolized ebola to test vaccines and changing ebola so infected people spread it through air. The records support the former. I haven’t seen evidence of the latter. There are still fair questions about funding and oversight and Fauci wanting the results classified.Those are different questions, though.
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 10:00 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 9:43 am to Cosmo
quote:
The argument he will make is that you aerosolize it in a lab to develop treatments for it because china and russia might use it as a weapon in future
It sounds like they aerosolized it so they could infect animals with it more easily to study vaccine effectiveness against it.
But that sounds like bullshite reasoning to me. Couldn't they just administer it with an injection? Killing two birds with one stone.
The military weaponized the shite under the guise of using it to study vaccines is what happened.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 9:43 am to BoarEd
quote:
The Hunt For Red October was so accurate they thought he had access to classified leaks.
The Reagan WH actually called him in for a debriefing.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 9:47 am to CAD703X
quote:
Yet he walks free among us
We should send him to Tennessee and execute him a few times
Posted on 10/1/26 at 9:51 am to Cosmo
Yes, there’s already some published research from 2008:
LINK
quote:
Vesicular stomatitis virus-based vaccines protect nonhuman primates against aerosol challenge with Ebola and Marburg viruses
Thomas W Geisbert et al. Vaccine. 2008.
Considerable progress has been made over the last decade in developing candidate preventive vaccines that can protect nonhuman primates against Ebola and Marburg viruses. A vaccine based on recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) seems to be particularly robust as it can also confer protection when administered as a postexposure treatment. While filoviruses are not thought to be transmitted by aerosol in nature the inhalation route is among the most likely portals of entry in the setting of a bioterrorist event. At present, all candidate filoviral vaccines have been evaluated against parenteral challenges but none have been tested against an aerosol exposure. Here, we evaluated our recombinant VSV-based Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV) and Marburg virus (MARV) vaccines against aerosol challenge in cynomolgus macaques. All monkeys vaccinated with a VSV vector expressing the glycoprotein of ZEBOV were completely protected against an aerosol exposure of ZEBOV. Likewise, all monkeys vaccinated with a VSV vector expressing the glycoprotein of MARV were completely protected against an aerosol exposure of MARV. All control animals challenged by the aerosol route with either ZEBOV or MARV succumbed. Interestingly, disease in control animals appeared to progress slower than previously seen in macaques exposed to comparable doses by intramuscular injection.
LINK
Posted on 10/1/26 at 9:52 am to BoarEd
quote:
What could be the possible benefit of aerosolizing one of the deadliest viruses in the world if not trying to kill as many people as possible?
Have to depopulate to stop global warming... and eliminate all the human parasites that will be looking for handouts and "universal basic income" after AI takes all the jobs.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 9:54 am to Tigersforthee
quote:
The global cabal is serious about getting rid of 90% of us one way or another.
This. And they will.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:00 am to BoarEd
quote:
It sounds like they aerosolized it so they could infect animals with it more easily to study vaccine effectiveness against it.
But that sounds like bullshite reasoning to me. Couldn't they just administer it with an injection?
Exactly. That's bullshite. This was being developed for more than just tests on lab animals. Please...
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:04 am to BoarEd
Katie is great. She was one of my faves at FNC.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:06 am to BoarEd
An injection can infect them but it doesn’t necessarily test the same thing (a vaccine that protects against injected virus might or might not protect vs. exposure through the lungs.)
If the study details were released you could see the protocol and alleged safety reasoning. You’d want to know what required aerosol exposure rather than injection and did the findings actually show a vaccine-related problem? and what Fauci’s justification was for wanting them classified, etc.
That sort of thing could in theory help somebody judge the experiment plan and how it was handled (that exposure route alone doesn’t establish that vaccine testing was a cover for weapons development).
If the study details were released you could see the protocol and alleged safety reasoning. You’d want to know what required aerosol exposure rather than injection and did the findings actually show a vaccine-related problem? and what Fauci’s justification was for wanting them classified, etc.
That sort of thing could in theory help somebody judge the experiment plan and how it was handled (that exposure route alone doesn’t establish that vaccine testing was a cover for weapons development).
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 10:07 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:19 am to TigerDoc
Right, but ebola wasn't frickin aerosolized until they aerosolized it, right? So no matter which way you cut it, they weaponized it.
Why would you need to develop a vaccine for an airborne ebola virus if ebola wasn't airborne until you frickin made it airborne? As it exists in the wild today, it should be able to be studied through injection.
Why would you need to develop a vaccine for an airborne ebola virus if ebola wasn't airborne until you frickin made it airborne? As it exists in the wild today, it should be able to be studied through injection.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:24 am to BoarEd
"Biodefense" supplies a possible rationale, not a blanket justification. How legit or bogus it would be will probably depend on some classified materials that we probably won't get soon, but who knows. Whether there was a credible threat and whether this was worth the risks is what I'd want to establish. 
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 10:29 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:27 am to TigerDoc
The takeaway from this is essentially that our military has weaponized every possible terrible virus in existence just in case someone else does it first.
We have to do all the bad things first and cannot be beaten to the punch.
I can somewhat understand the rationale there I guess, but it's still entirely reckless.
We have to do all the bad things first and cannot be beaten to the punch.
I can somewhat understand the rationale there I guess, but it's still entirely reckless.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 10:35 am to BoarEd
So what is congress going to do about it?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News