Main Menu

Updates

Donations

Available Books

New World War: Revolutionary Methods for Political Control

Dedication & Thanks


Volume I: Current Political Situation


Volume II: The New War


Volume III: Weapons of The New War


Volume IV: The Coverup


Appendix


Chemical and Biological
Calmatives

Calmative agents, (also called chemical peacemakers, incapacitants, and psychotropics), are used on people to render them incapable of continuing their actions. They cause a variety of effects, from hallucinations to unconsciousness and will be used in a very large number of operational scenarios.

Broad categories of calmatives include opiods, antidepressants, skeletal muscle relaxants, antipsychotics, anesthetic agents, sedatives, and hypnotic agents. They work by inhibiting the function of the central nervous system. Depending on the dose and duration, they produce physiological and behavioral changes, ranging from mild sedation to coma or death.

They include drugs which are used to treat anxiety, depression and schizophrenia, including: alpha2-adrenoreceptor agonists, cholecystokinin B receptor antagonists, serotonin 5-HT 1A receptor agonists, serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), benzodiazepines, anxiolytics, dopamine D3 receptor agonists, opioid receptors and mu agonists, and corticotrophin-releasing factor receptor antagonists, as well as convulsants.

The chemical’s impact on the central nervous system produces these effects: trance, euphoria, and depression, as well as sedation, dizziness, headaches, abdominal pains, destruction of the cardiovascular system, coma, and death. Psychological effects may include anxiety and voices or noises in the head. Other types of incapacitants that have been considered include ones that make people sensitive to sunlight or induce nausea and vomiting.

“In the variety of situations in which non-lethal techniques are used,” advocates the Applied Research Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University, “there may be less need to be concerned with unattractive side-effects.” They then described how one could be specifically designed to include “less than desirable” side-effects like headaches and nausea.

It has been suggested that chemical aphrodisiacs that cause homosexual behavior can be used on enemy troops to lower their morale. On January 14, 2005, US Newswire reported in their article, Pentagon Confirms Report of Planned Gay Conversion Chemical Weapon, that the US Air Force was interested in developing a gay conversion chemical. According to the report, it was never implemented.

Chemicals, explained, the NRC may be easily dispersed to deliver effects to groups and individuals. And the objective, says the US Army Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Center is to develop them for immobilizing adversaries in various military and law enforcement scenarios, including local, state and national law enforcement agencies.

Calmatives are essentially drugs too dangerous to get past medical review boards but with a potential weapons role, said the Asia Times in the April 2003 report, Next Up: ‘Non-lethal’ Chemicals that Kill. According to the Times, they’re obviously used under the assumption that civilians are expendable.

In July of 2002 Time Magazine acknowledged that the US government’s interest in using weaponized forms of antidepressants and opiates appeared to be beyond the bounds of good sense and could lead to “terrifying scenarios” for abuse.

PSU advised that that they should be used in conjunction with electromagnetic waves to enhance their effectiveness. The New Jersey Bergen County Record described in December of 2002 that as NLW development continues, chemical agents will soon be available that inflict intense pain, alter bodily functions, and control mood, thought, and consciousness.

The chemicals are available in solid, liquid, powder, or gas form. The gas form is said to be colorless and odorless. The most common methods for the chemicals to enter the body are inhalation or absorption through the skin.

The form, method of delivery, and type of chemical used, determines how fast it takes effect. Inhalation causes the onset of symptoms in about 1 minute, while absorption produces effects in about 3 to 5 minutes. Long-distance weapon platforms include an aerosol dispenser called the Overhead Liquid Dispersal System (OLDS), which can deliver a dose of chemicals 13 meters in diameter up to 175 meters away.

Another proposed platform is a grenade launcher using an 81 millimeter mortar cartridge that can dispense chemicals up to 2.5 kilometers away. The Vortex Gun can also be used as a delivery method. Other possible dispersion methods for CBW include micro-encapsulation, which uses tiny, thin-shelled capsules containing the agent. The shell is designed to burst under certain conditions, such as contact with water, pressure, or at a specific temperature.

The Weapons of Mass Casualties and Terrorism Response Handbook, by the Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, mentioned that calmatives could easily be delivered into a room by manipulating the ventilation system. Metz and Kievit told of a scenario where calmatives could be placed in the food supply of a troubled population. PSU also advocates covert delivery methods in its report.

Biological Weapons

The US military will be using biological weapons on civilians in this new war. These biological attacks include infecting people with viruses that cause disease and injury.

In its Nonlethal Weapons: Terms and References report, the USAF Institute for National Security Studies describes Disease Organisms as, “nonfatal diseases targeted toward troops and civilians.” Also advocated, has been changing the genetic structure of targeted individuals, families, and ethnic groups.

These tactics are considered nonlethal by the US military. “Modern biotechnology,” says the Georgetown Journal of International Law, provides “a variety of other capabilities that might be adapted to police or military NLW missions.” Biological weapons can be sprayed in the air, or placed in a target’s food or water supply.1

There are apparently biogenetic (gene specific) weapons, capable of targeting not just specific ethnic groups, but even an individual. When these weapons are designed to target an ethnic group, they’re referred to as ethno-weapons. On PBS’s Plague War series in October of 1998, Dr. Christopher Davis, former Defense Intelligence Staff in the UK, announced, “We also have the possibility of targeting specific ethnic groups of specific genetic subtypes, if you like, of the population.”

In the late 1970s Soviet scientists apparently became aware of these types of weapons and are said to have attempted an international ban on them. In 1992, Bo Rybeck, Director of the Swedish National Defense Research Institute, warned, “We will be able to determine the differences between blacks and whites and Orientals and Jews and Swedes and Finns and develop an agent that will kill only a [particular] group.”

A January 1999 report entitled Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity, by the British Medical Association warned that biogenetic weapons could be developed for use, not just against an ethnic group, but a family as well.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was assembled to investigate state-sponsored chemical and biological attacks that occurred in South Africa from 1960 to 1994. It discovered that military research laboratories in South Africa tried to develop an ethno-weapon in the 1980s, which would only infect black people.

The former director of a chemical and biological weapons laboratory, Daan Goosen, told the commission that the Surgeon General described it as the most important project in the country. According to the commission, the project was unsuccessful. The viruses were to be spread in drinks, food, and vaccinations.

In November of 1998, Wired and the Sunday Times reported that Israel was developing an ethno-weapon to use against Arabs. “The weapon, targeting victims by ethnic origin, is seen as Israel’s response to Iraq’s threat of chemical and biological attacks,” declared the Times on November 15.

The development for the virus took place at a chemical and biological research facility called Nes Tziyona. The scientists were trying to engineer deadly micro-organisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes, with the intention of using viruses and certain bacteria to alter the DNA inside their host’s living cells.

The November 22, 1998 New York Post article, Now Playing: A Blood Libel for the 21st Century, denounced such stories as hoaxes. Then on December 2, 1998, Salon News ran an article called Debunking the Ethno-Bomb, where several experts basically stated that such a weapon is currently unattainable.

Bill Richardson, a deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan and Bush administrations described such stories as “nonsense.” “That sounds too far-fetched to me,” added Dr. Daphne Kamely, a microbiologist who had worked with the National Institutes for Health and the Environmental Protection Agency. “It’s theoretically possible,” noted Dr. Victor Delvecchio, a scientist at the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania, “but we don’t have the database of human genes to do this yet.”

However, such a database now exists. The Human Genome Project (HGP) was an international effort to identify and map all of the 20,000 to 25,000 human genes, as well as the 3 billion chemical base pairs that compose human DNA. The project began in 1990 and was headed by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the US Department of Energy (DOE).

Most research was conducted by universities and research centers in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Other participating countries were Japan, France, Germany, and China. The public was told that it was initiated to understand and cure hereditary diseases. The project was completed in 2003. According to the Department of Energy, all gene information is now stored in a database.2

Despite the positive intentions given for projects such as the HGP, the technology will be used for destructive purposes. “HGP and proteomics have greatly enriched bioinformation,” announced the US Army, Military Review, in their July-August 2005 report, Ultramicro, Nonlethal, and Reversible: Looking Ahead to Military Biotechnology.

It makes possible, not just attacks against ethnic groups or families, but individuals too. “If we acquire a target’s genome and proteome information, including those of ethnic groups or individuals, we could design a vulnerating agent that attacks only key enemies without doing any harm to ordinary people.”

“Many other newly developed biotechnologies,” proclaimed the Review, “lend themselves to military purposes.” Some proposed uses include: DNA recombination, gene modification, gene cloning, gene targeting, and tissue engineering. “These biotechnologies will vastly enrich the military’s ability to defend and attack,” they asserted.

Regarding the militarization of genomics, Jacques Forster vice-president of the International Committee of the Red Cross had this to say on October 6, 2005: “Nearly all major advances, in whatever domain, have been turned to hostile use. … We have to consider what the future of humanity will be if the many beneficial advances in life sciences, biotechnology and pharmacology that we are now witnessing are put to hostile use.” “These scenarios,” continued Forster, “have either occurred or been identified by countless independent and governmental experts.”

Genomics allows for the precision injury of tissue or organs. Different pathogens will allegedly be used to achieve specific military goals, according to the Review. “A military attack, therefore, might wound an enemy’s genes, proteins, cells, tissues, and organs, causing more damage than conventional weapons could.” What the Review is suggesting here is changing the physical and/or functional characteristics of an organ.

Using gene manipulation as a biotechnological military weapon, it is possible to attack and injure one or more physiological functions, such as the ability to learn, memorize, perform certain motor activities, or even behave in a certain way.

The Institute for National Security Studies of the USAF defines genetic alteration as: “The act of changing genetic code to create a desired less-than-lethal but longterm disablement effect, perhaps for generations…” The Review informs us that these weapons are difficult to detect, very portable, easy to use, and require only simple support systems.

Gene alteration can be accomplished in a delayed manner and triggered by a specific event. The pathogenic genes are placed inside a living body, and attach themselves to the target’s DNA. The body acts as an incubator until a specific event, such as the introduction of another material, triggers a timed causation of disease. In this case, says Dr. Davis, the newly added material locks together with the first material and affects the genome.

Because the gene has been altered, the organ or physiological process which has been permanently damaged will be inherited by all future generations. What they have created and will be using on civilians as a NLW is a technology that can devastate an entire bloodline. What’s more is that the targeted family would never know they were the subject of a military attack. “Only after obvious wounding occurs,” says the Review, “will enemies realize they are under attack. In this sense, using military biotechnology weapons is a good tactic.”3

In its Threat of Non-Lethal Weapons article the Record proclaimed: “The same technological revolution that is accelerating the development of new medical products is also making it possible for coercive regimes to manipulate human beings by altering their psychological processes, controlling their behavior, interfering with reproduction, or tampering with inheritance—and even to do so without the knowledge of the victims.”

These biological weapons are the result of a revolution taking place in biotechnology, which, according to the US Military, is connected with the RMA. “As a result of breakthroughs in the Human Genome and the Human Diversity Projects and the revolution in neuroscience,” wrote Dr. Steve Wright of the Omega Foundation, “the way has opened up using blood proteins to attack a particular racial group using selected engineered viruses or toxins.”

There are international bans on biological and chemical weapons. Some experts interpret this as a total ban, which includes these types of weapons. However, if the weapons can be defined as nonlethal then there appears to be a condition which allows them to be used for domestic purposes, such as peace keeping, riot control, and military operations other than war.

Much time could be spent debating the legality of these weapons. But the bottom line is that they will be used. There has apparently been some concern over the use of both nanotechnology and biotechnology as weapons. In addition, labeling them as nonlethal seems to be yet another deceptive tactic to convince the public to accept them.

Multiple researchers have arrived at the conclusion that labeling weapons based on chemistry and biology as nonlethal is a deliberate act of deception. In their September 19, 2001 report, The Destabilizing Danger of ‘Non-Lethal’ Chemical and Biological Weapons in the War on Terrorism, the Sunshine Project announced that these weapons must be rejected for the highly destructive chemical and biological weapons that they are.

Antimaterial

Antimaterial weapons will be used to deteriorate enemy infrastructure such as roads, equipment, structures and facilities, support tools and equipment, supplies, and replacement parts.4 Transportation systems including vehicles, planes, and ships will also be targeted.

The destruction of these materials will be brought about using specially designed chemicals known as supercaustics and viscosifiers, in addition to genetically engineered microorganisms. High-energy lasers and high-powered microwaves will be used to accomplish this destruction too.5

Viscosifyers

The degradation and eventual destruction of engines can be brought about by placing chemical contaminants called viscosifiers into the gas tank or engine. Two methods that are used to alter a lubricant’s properties to sabotage an engine include adding abrasive particles and altering its viscosity. Increasing lubricant viscosity will result in an increase in engine heating, a decrease in efficiency, and an acceleration of engine failure.

In a 1994 paper, Lubricant and Grease Additives for Immobilizing Machinery, Sandia National Laboratory proposed creating a computer program to determine the exact time an engine would fail depending on the type of sabotage used. “The goal of this work,” they stated, “is to develop methods of poisoning lubricants so that rapid or predictable delayed failure of the lubricated machinery can be produced.

On May 10, 2002, the Associated Press reported that the Office of Naval Research was working on ways to poison lubricants in an enemy’s machinery, causing breakdowns. This applies to all types of engines, not just vehicles. Proposed delivery systems include foams or sprays.

Viscosifyers can also be placed in fuel tanks to degrade engine performance by altering engine combustion or increasing its viscosity. Additionally, engines can be disabled by filter clogging materials which can be delivered from airborne platforms.

Caustics

Supercaustics, also called supercorrosives, are powerful acids that quickly eat through polymers (rubber and plastic) and metals. They include acids known as embrittlements which weaken metals, and ones which dissolve polymers called depolymers.6 Reportedly, chemicals exist which weaken glass.

Metal embrittlements are liquid chemicals which alter the molecular structure of metal, making it weak and susceptible to structural failure. These agents are usually created for a specific metal or alloy. They can be delivered in an aerosol or liquid form. Depolymisers are liquid chemical compounds that induce the breakdown of chemical bonds in polymers to deteriorate rubber-based materials and plastics.

Microorganisms (microbs) are another type of supercaustic weapon which can degrade or destroy polymers and metals.7 Microbs are microscopic organisms which consume matter and act as natural decomposers in the environment. Bacteria and fungi are examples.

Microorganisms can also be genetically engineered to eat a specific type of matter. These organisms are to be used as weapons against military targets. Intended uses for supercaustics include: asphalt and cement roads, roofs, vehicles, tires, and the destruction of petroleum products such as oil and lubricants.

There are also airborne materials that can be delivered into the air filter of an engine or the air supply system of a facility, which would shut them down.

But because these substances are designed to destroy general materials such as glass, rubber, plastic, and metal, any object which contains these materials are potential targets. Obviously, this is a wide range of targets, and the NRC says that these weapons will be used in such a manner.

Vehicles

In addition to viscosifiers and supercaustics being used to destroy engines and other parts, moving vehicles can be disabled with directed-energy weapons called engine killers. These weapons are also called motor vehicle electrical arrestors or radio frequency vehicle stoppers. They are high-powered microwaves which can stop the engines of moving vehicles at great distances, silently, and at the speed of light.

The engine remains disabled for as long as the energy is focused on it. These weapons can also fry a vehicle’s electrical system. Lasers too will be used to destroy the electrical components of vehicles. According to the NRC, some uses for high-powered lasers include bursting automobile tires and rupturing fuel tanks. They can also crack windshields.

Antitraction

Antitraction agents, also called polymers, low-friction polymers and superlubricants, are chemical or polymer-based gels, liquids, or foams that are spread onto surfaces to make them impassable. They are used to prevent the movement of vehicles, equipment, and people.

The Marines have a polymer-based spray, developed at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio that makes asphalt, concrete, grass, and wood as slippery as ice. Some types are reportedly 10 times more slippery than ice and last from 12 to 24 hours. Airborne delivery systems are envisioned for this substance, according to a January 4, 1993 story in the Wall Street Journal.

Sandia National Laboratories and the Emulsion Polymers Institute at Lehigh University were working on a millimeter-sized microencapsulated superlubricant in 2002-2003. It has a sticky outer surface that could be placed on walls and other surfaces. The capsules remain intact for several days, until a person, vehicle, or other heavy object moves over them. Then they burst, making the surface ultra-slippery.

Research was being conducted to develop methods to rupture the capsules remotely using heat and moisture. Reported target surfaces for these agents include bridges, railroad tracks, grades, ramps, runways, stairs, and equipment. Dirt roads can also be made impassable using soil destablizers. Another type of NLW includes combustible substances that, “burst into flame or explode,” when people or vehicles pass over them.

Uses and Delivery Methods

Chemical compounds known as defoliants which have been used during the Vietnam War to destroy plants which were providing concealment to the enemy, are also considered NLW and will be used to destroy a target’s crops.

It has also been suggested that other types of biological organisms will be used as NLWs to poison a target’s food and water sources. The goal of attacking the enemy in this manner is to slow them down by increasing their financial burden and maintenance requirements.

In their 1994 paper, Biofouling and Biocorrosion, the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) announced that these weapons will be used for the “harassment of targets.” On May 10, 2002, the Associated Press mentioned that UAVs could be used as platforms to deliver these weapons. The Georgetown Journal of International Law revealed on April 1, 2005 that supercaustic chemicals could be spread surreptitiously onto enemy equipment, in order to perform “mischief.”

According to John Alexander, freezedried antimaterial biological weapons can be placed on a target, then either time-delayed to activate years later, or remotely detonated, making the source of the destruction impossible to identify.

In 1998 the Biotechnology Branch of the Radiofrequency Radiation Division of the Armstrong Laboratory at Brooks Air Force Base began developing highly efficient, environmentally safe, and remotely triggered bacteria which could be used to shut down vehicles or facilities in a controlled fashion at a distance using directed-energy. The bacteria could be genetically altered to destroy, according to them, any material.

In addition, markers which can be detected by infrared sensors can be placed in the catalyst so the remote destruction of the material can be remotely monitored. What this discovery amounts to is not only the remote controlled destruction of any material, but battle damage assessment at a distance. “The application of this technology is limitless,” they proclaimed. “Catalysts can be engineered to destroy whatever war material is desired.”

Malodorants

Malodorants (stink bombs) are non-toxic, environmentally safe chemicals used as NLW for area denial and behavior modification. The use of malodorants goes back to at least WWII when the US National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) provided the resistance in France with stink bombs in 1944 to dissuade German occupiers.

As early as 1966 DARPA began researching this technology, and since then the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center (ECBC), and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio have conducted studies. Kansas State University and Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia have also worked with the DOD researching malodorants.

A variety of delivery methods are available. They can be sprayed, transferred at least 175 meters away using an overhead liquid dispenser, and transmitted at least 50 meters using a vortex gun. The delayed release of malodorants can also be accomplished using microcapsules several micrometers or millimeters in size, which can be designed to burst under certain conditions, such as expose to water, sunlight, air, or abrasive action. The Boston Globe hinted that the remote release of them is possible when they stated that ones are being developed which can “dissolve on command.”

The odor typically lasts from a few minutes up to several days depending on the concentration. The Israeli government is said to have developed ones that can last up to 5 years. Enzymes can be taken by operators and others who will be exposed which will counteract the effect. Bacterial solutions exist will neutralize the malodorant within 2 to 3 hours.

Some of the more common ones include: bathroom malodor, rotten cheese, vomit, body odor, sewage, burnt hair, rotting corpses, feces, skunk, rotten eggs, sewage, and rotting animals. Combinations can be used. For instance, stench soup is a combination of Who Me? and bathroom malodor.

According to the 1997 US Army Edgewood Research Development and Engineering Center (ERDEC) report, Odorous Substances, a large odor atlas is available which includes formulas that can replicate most common odors.8 “It is now possible to duplicate nearly any odor desired,” they mentioned.

The olfactory nerves are responsible for odor perception and recognition. When they pick up a signal it separates into 2 routes in the brain. One goes to the thalamus and neocortex where the signals are translated into conscious awareness.

The other route leads to the limbic system (emotional center), which contains the hippocampus (memory center). So the path an odor travels directly connects with parts of the brain responsible for storing memory and controlling emotions. Therefore, an olfactory response in people immediately becomes a long-term emotionally-charged memory.

Research on odor and memory suggests that odors, rather than pictures, elicit more vivid and emotional memories. People exposed to certain odors during a negative emotional state will retain the vivid memory of the negative experience and avoid the odor which was linked to it.

Because of this, one proposed use for malodorants is behavior modification. “These results,” announced Monell Chemical Senses Center, “strongly suggest that odors, particularly noxious ... ones, can serve as powerful agents of behavior modification.”

The effects of malodorants span the mental, behavioral, physiological, and emotional realm. Potent ones can impede cognitive performance. Because of the olfactory system’s close association with the emotional center of the brain, certain odors can cause immediate emotional responses of fear, panic or disgust. They can influence people to leave an area. The eyes may tear, the stomach may become weak, and the gag reflex may result in choking.

For potent formulas, the usual responses include immediate nausea, followed by gagging, and vomiting. The nausea may last several hours. And its intensity can be increased or decreased depending on the concentration of the malodorant. Mathematical formulas exist which can determine exactly how intense a particular smell has to be to make someone vomit.

Malodorants will basically be used to warn, annoy, disgust, and nauseate.9 Specific applications include peacekeeping, incapacitating individuals and groups, isolation and control of people, area denial, clearing public areas, forcing people from buildings and other facilities, and dispersing crowds. They’ll also be used to deny access to transportation mediums such as vehicles, aircraft, vessels, etc.

The Monell Chemical Senses Center says they can be used to disrupt demonstrations and other types of undesirable behavior. More generally, they’ll be used for attitude adjustment according to the June 1998 report prepared for the JNLWD by the Science Applications International Corporation entitled, Situational Control by Olfactory Stimuli.

Sensory profiles on ethnic and racial groups have been developed. DARPA began studying race specific malodorants as far back as 1966. The genetic difference between these groups determines which odors annoy them the most. The ECBC proposed the development of odors that can be used against any population set on the planet. Suggestions have even been made to create odors to violate the beliefs of specific political and religious groups.

Studies have also been conducted on how odors effect individuals with respect to their personality traits and experience with the odor. The odor atlas allegedly includes odors that have been custom-designed to offend specific populations of the world. Because of these studies, operators are aware of how groups and individuals will respond to certain odors.

Sources

Endnotes

1 I'm sure they've poisoned my food and water supply multiple times with some type of agent that made me sick for days. I have reason to think that they also drugged me at least once in a restaurant. Once, when I was sick for days and had narrowed it down to the water supply, I was told by the homeowner (who was also my roommate) that there was some type of bacteria in the well. They let me know that they had arranged it. A variation of this is placing something in either my food or water supply which makes me break out.

2 Over the span of about 5 months, between November 2001 and March 2002, 11 of the world's leading microbiologists died under what the Globe and Mail described as "sudden suspicious circumstances." Many were involved in biological weapons research. And some were conducting studies on DNA sequencing. None of the sources listed at the end of this note state that these scientists were involved specifically in the HGP. However, research on DNA sequencing contributed significantly to the completion of the HGP, which, as we now know was an international scientific research projected, intended to determine the sequence of chemical base pairs which compose the human DNA.

Some of the cited sources give conflicting information regarding the exact dates for a couple of these deaths, which may differ by several days. But the basic timeline is as follows: On November 12 of 2001, Dr. Benito Que, 52, was found unconscious in a street near his laboratory at the Miami Medical School. He died several weeks later. At first the police suspected a mugging. It was then determined that he died of a heart attack. His family insists that he was in perfect health and was attacked by four men. His research at the university included infectious diseases. He was involved in DNA sequencing projects as well.

Four days later, on November 16, 2001, Dr. Don Wiley, 57, a top microbiologist in the US at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Harvard University, disappeared. His body was found floating in the Mississippi River on December 20. The Shelby County Medical Examiner announced that his death was the result of an accident. He allegedly lost his balance, fell into the river and drowned. Dr. Wiley was one of the most prominent microbiologists in the world and was intricately involved in research pertaining to DNA sequencing. Five days after Dr. Wiley's death, on November 21, Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik, 64, died of a stroke in the backyard of his home near Wiltshire, England. Dr. Pasechnik was a world-renowned Russian microbiologist who defected to Britain in 1989. As the USSR's top bioweapons scientist, he developed deadly strains of viruses such as anthrax, ebola, Marburg, plague, Q fever, and smallpox while working at the Institute of Ultra Pure Biochemical Preparations. At the UK Department of Public Health, he is said to have been working on DNA sequencing.

The next couple of deaths occurred in December of 2001, and they were less than a week apart. The first was Dr. Robert M. Schwartz, 57, found stabbed to death at his home in Loudoun County, Virginia on December 10. The police first speculated that Dr. Schwartz interrupted a burglary in progress. However, there were no signs of forced entry and nothing was missing. His daughter was eventually charged with the murder. Dr. Schwartz was a founding member of the Virginia Biotechnology Association and an expert on DNA sequencing, who worked at the Center for Innovative Technology in Herndon, VA. Then on December 14, Dr. Set Van Nguyen was found dead in his laboratory at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Geelong, Australia. According to the Victoria police, Dr. Nguyen died after entering an area of the laboratory that contained too much nitrogen which caused him to collapse from lack of oxygen.

A year earlier, two scientists from this facility were acknowledged in the science journal Nature for their work on DNA sequencing. Studies pertaining to infectious viruses were conducted at the facility. In January of 2002, Ivan Glebov and Alexi Brushlinski, members of the Russian Academy of Science, were killed. Glebov died of a bandit attack. Not much information has been released regarding Brushlinski's death, other than him being killed in Moscow.

Then in February of 2002 more deaths occurred. A Russian microbiologist named Victor Korshunov, 56, was found dead in his home in Moscow on February 9. Dr. Korshunov died of a massive head injury. He was the top microbiologist at the Russian State Medical University involved in biological weapons research. On February 14, the body of a British microbiologist, Dr. Ian Langford, 40, was found wedged under a chair in his ransacked home near Norwich, England. The coroners were unable to determine the exact cause of death. He was one of Europe's leading experts on the links between human health and environmental risk.

On February 28, two weeks after the deaths of Korshunov and Langford, two more prominent microbiologists died in San Fransisco. One was Dr. Tanya Holzmayer, 46 who was shot by a fellow microbiologist named Guyang Huang, 38, who also shot himself afterward. In March of 2002, a couple more deaths occurred, one right after the other. The first was Dr. David Wynn-Williams, 55, a leading astrobiologist with the British Antarctic Survey, who died on March 24 after being struck by a car while jogging near his home in Cambridge, England. The day after, Dr. Steven Mostow, 63, an expert in bioterrorism, died when the plane he was piloting crashed near Denver, Colorado.

In addition to these deaths, a couple more occurred under questionable circumstances in 2003 and 2005. On July 18, 2003, Dr. David Kelly, a biological warfare weapons specialist for the British government, died at 59 after slashing his wrist and swallowing 29 painkillers. As an expert on DNA sequencing, he was also involved in work at the Institute of Biological Research in the Tel Aviv suburb Nes Zions, one of the most secretive facilities in Israel. There have been reports that the institute is involved in DNA sequencing research to create biological weapons which target only specific groups of people. Medical experts and a former coroner mentioned that it was unlikely that he committed suicide. Unfortunately his postmortem report has been classified for 70 years. One of his relatives suggested that he was murdered.

He also had links to several other top microbiologists and two biodefense corporations. He knew Drs. Que and Wiley, and was aware of their DNA sequencing research to develop race-specific weapons. He also had been in contact with Hadron Advanced Biosystems, which specializes in medication used to treat biological weapons attacks. Hadron allegedly tried to recruit Dr. Kelly before his death. It is run by Kamovtjan Alibekov, who worked with Dr. Pasechnik as one of Russia's top experts in bioweapons research before defecting to the US in 1992. Hadron specializes in providing technical solutions for the US intelligence community and has received funding for bioweapons research from DARPA. The other company is Regma Biotechnologies, which Kelly helped its founder, Dr. Pasechnik, setup in Britain at the country's biological warfare establishment, Porter Down. Kelly helped to debrief Dr. Pasechnik when he defected to Britain in 1989, bringing with him information about Russia's biological weapons development.

Research at Regma is classified as top secret. It is one of the most restricted establishments in Britain. Regma had a contract with the US Navy for the treatment of deadly viruses. On May 19 of 2005 Dr. Robert J. Lull, 64, the former head of the San Francisco Medical Society, and a prominent physician at the San Fransisco General Hospital, was stabbed to death at his home in Diamond Heights. Dr. Lull had formerly been the chief of nuclear medicine at the Letterman Army Medical Center in the Presidio.

Prior to these deaths, on October 4, 2001, a Siberian Airlines flight from Tel Aviv, Israel, to Novosibirsk, Siberia, was accidentally shot down over the Black Sea by an errant Ukrainian surface-to-air missile, killing everyone on board. The flight is said to have been carrying five microbiologists on their way to work at one of the scientific laboratories in Novosibirsk. Several weeks later on November 24 of 2001, a Swissair flight from Berlin to Zurich crashed while landing. 24 people were killed including the head of the hematology department at Israel's Ichilov Hospital, and directors of the Tel Aviv Public Health Department.

Dr. Pasechnik's death on November 21 occurred 10 days after he met Dr. Wiley in Boston to discuss DNA sequencing. Dr. Wiley, as we've learned, would disappear 5 days before Dr. Pasechnik died, and his body would eventually be found floating in the Mississippi River. Also worth mentioning is that Drs. Wiley, Schwartz, and Que all worked for medical research facilities that received grants from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI). According to the independent media source From the Wilderness, HHMI has conducted covert biomedical projects for intelligence agencies, and the murder of scientists involved in such research extends back to 1994. Author Stephen Quayle claims that nearly 100 scientists, many of whom were involved in bioweapons research, have died under questionable circumstances since 1994.

See the following: American Free Press, Microbiologists with Link to Race-Based Weapon Turning up Dead, August 10, 2003, Gordon Thomas; the Globe and Mail, Scientists' Deaths are Under the Microscope, May 4, 2002, Alanna Mitchell, Simon Cooper, Carolyn Abraham; From The Wilderness, A Career in Microbiology Can Be Harmful to Your Health, February 28, 2002, Michael Davidson, Michael C. Ruppert; The Memphis Flyer, Does a Rash of Mysterious Deaths Around the World Lead to Memphis?, March 7, 2002, Rebekah Gleaves; Daily Mail, UK, It Was Never Suicide, August 17, 2010, Miles Goslett; The Times, UK, Mystery Death of Scientist, February 13, 2002, Michael Horsnell; San Francisco Chronicle, Doctor Stabbed to Death, May 20, 2005, Jaxon Van Derbeken, Sabin Russell; List of Dead Scientists, www.stevequayle.com.

3 In its, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences report of February 8, 2006, DARPA expressed an interest in developing technology that would allow them to remotely and noninvasively control and monitor the biological activity of people at the system, organ, and cellular level. This allows for the precision remote control of a person's bodily functions.

4 They continually destroy personal items, tools, equipment, clothing, etc. Materials made of metal or plastic crumble or fall apart. I've noticed that the destruction of these materials is sometimes remotely controlled and synchronized with other attacks. I've determined that the ongoing automobile trouble that I experienced with multiple vehicles was probably caused by them.

5 According to a Naval Research Laboratory report entitled, Enhanced Degradation of Military Material, neither the 1972 Geneva Convention on Biological Warfare nor any other international agreement, restrict the use of these weapons.

6 Supercaustics are chemicals which dissolve metals and polymers. Because embrittlements and depolymers are also chemicals, supercaustics appear to be a general term used to describe them both.

7 The Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College's May 1998 report, Non-lethal Technologies: Implications for Military Strategy, says that supercaustics are chemical and biological enzymes, which indicates that microbes are in this category.

8 The US Army Edgewood Research Development and Engineering Center (ERDEC) is now called the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center (ECBC).

9 The most common type I've noticed is the stench of rotting carcases. During the summer of 2009, for instance, this stench followed me into vehicles and multiple housing structures.