Ebola “Lock-down” in Sierra Leone and other considerations.
ALJAZERA: “A team of health workers trying to bury Ebola victims has come under attack in Sierra Leone, as the country struggled through the second day of a nationwide curfew to help combat the virus.
“Police were called on Saturday to help the team in the village of Matainkay, 20km east of the capital Freetown. A witness told state television that the burial team initially had to abandon five bodies and flee.
“A local police commander told the Reuters news agency that “some youths attempted to disrupt the burial”.
“Since the curfew came into effect on Friday, most of Sierra Leone’s six million people have been confined to their homes. Only essential workers, such as health professionals and security forces, are exempt.
“However critics say that the measures could cause people to go to extra lengths to conceal those infected.
The charity group Doctors Without Borders said it would be “extremely difficult for health workers to accurately identify cases through door-to-door screening”.
Clearly, the local people are highly suspicious of government involvement, particularly as regards treatment and the policy of being confined to their houses reminiscent of the desperate measures adopted in the London Plague of 1665, from which we appear to have learned little – at least when it comes to the less valuable “African life”.
BBC AFRICA: ” (about a minute ago)
“Today is the third and final day of a lockdown in Sierra Leone aimed at stopping the spread of Ebola in the country. The authorities have expressed satisfaction over the first two days of the exercise which has seen about 30,000 mostly young volunteers visit homes. Several corpses of Ebola victims have been discovered, as well as a huge number of sick people. But the lack of facilities to cope with the increased numbers has also been exposed, particularly the acute shortage of ambulances and treatment”
ME: Have you noticed how the term “Lock-Down” has suddenly appeared and is popping up with increasing frequency, usually on the back of a real, fabricated or imagined “threat”?
First in the (false flag) explosion in Boston; in Australia and Canada in response to protests; in Cardiff for the wonderful jamboree for the NATO Council meeting; now in relation to the West African Ebola outbreak. In every instance you can be sure someone is taking notes and drawing conclusions for future eventualities. Do they have something in mind for which it might come in useful? I am sure there is no significance in the fact that it has been used in events in the US, Canada, Britain and Australia, (four of the five eyes) arguably beginning with 9/11 besides of course (almost inevitably) Israel in respect of recent pogroms against local inhabitants. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockdown)
Then the idea that a disease is being used as an excuse to send American troops to West Africa (previously discussed) is referred to here: http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/09/20/us-using-ebola-epidemic-ploy-infiltrate-africa-military/
Obviously the emergence of this particular disease and the fact that the Americans already had a “miraculous” vaccine for treating it (effectively used on three victims) in the region, not available to treat local sufferers, raises significant questions that demand answers. Nor can the existence of “Boco Haram” in an important oil producing region be ruled out as the main reason for drafting in American troops, nor for that matter the possibility that operational principles are being tested for germ warfare situations.
After all if troops are to be deployed, how are they to be used? If coming into contact with a highly dangerous contagious disease they will have to be properly trained and equipped to protect themselves from infection.
I cannot get it out of my head that western planners, both in respect to “lock-down” and infectious agents, are trying out methods in real live situations to test theories and gain experience for future events either planned or envisaged!
To those who think this is a far fetched and outrageous suggestion, it merely follows well established precedent. Principles and practice with chemical and germ warfare from the First World War onwards in which the UK was (and still is) deeply involved, were tried out on human populations to extend knowledge and develop counter measures. Note: this included the creation of SARIN recently nefariously pinned on Assad at Ghouta. see: http://rt.com/news/study-challenges-syria-chemical-attack-681/
Part of the purpose of Porton Down, as has been subsequently revealed, was to test both on human “volunteers” who were bound to secrecy. see:
Many years ago I had first hand reports from an ex-soldier how it was the practice to lie in a bath of an un-named substance with only a small area of the skin exposed to it. And of exercises involving full protective gear in an atmosphere of deadly gas in which the role of the instructor was to strike down with a baton any soldier attempting to lift his mask to obtain more oxygen as he witnessed on more than one occasion.
Similarly, in the nuclear biological test programmes humans (both military and civilian) were used as guinea pigs. Some would argue this was part of the reasoning behind the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. The scientific team was ready and waiting to go in and produced as a result an exhaustive report. see:
This does not happen by accident or in the absence of forward planning and by way of illustration we may contrast the failure to monitor the use of defoliants in Indo China despite the undoubted health consequences. (Monsanto/Dow/Agent Orange see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange)
Nor, should it be noted has America been particularly interested in studying of fighting the prevalence of other endemic and deadly diseases. We should note that although we have been conditioned to believe the deadly threat always comes from elsewhere, it has been Britain and America (and their agent states) who have both developed and used biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in the past and possibly are either planning or using them now or in the future.