Search

Anthrax and Bioterrorism

Ingrid Naiman

It has been some weeks since the first case of inhalation anthrax in years was reported. There is no doubt but that this and the other cases resulted from deliberate attempts to infect unsuspecting individuals. There is also no doubt but that the organisms used to cause the infections are not typical of those found in animals where natural occurrences are common. In other words, the engineered organisms are products of a deviant mind with access to laboratory equipment.

I would like to comment on this from several perspectives:

• the investment on the part of governments in diabolical means of destroying life, using taxes and funds derived from covert operations to finance this assault on individuals;

• the differences between naturally occurring anthrax and bacteria that have been milled and perhaps also genetically engineered so as to deliver a more lethal payload; and

• protection that normal individuals can consider to render their own circumstances somewhat safer in a world that has become more and more precarious.

First, and I realize this is completely political, I really need to state unequivocally that using disease as an instrument of war is immoral and repugnant to all human decency and common sense. This is true whether the biological weapons are developed by ourselves, one of our allies, or by an enemy.

War itself may be an ancient and outdated method for solving problems. It is likely that it rarely actually resolves issues, but in today's world, it is certainly the most primitive strategy left in the brains of the madmen who create war.

It may be said that all is fair in love and war, but I wonder if it is true? To win by hook or crook, whether by terrorism or might, is an unstable victory with ramifications for many years beyond the first fatalities. To acquire a bride or a coveted piece of real estate to be used as an easement to oil-rich lands may inflate the vanity of those who appear to prevail, but those who are injured and displaced in the process will nourish the seeds of unrest for generations to come.

To use illness as a weapon is depraved and evil. Illness is bad enough when it appears to strike randomly without respect for individual priorities and planning; but it is absolutely unconscionable when targeted against a population for the purpose of murder and mayhem. May those who contrive such suffer the isolation and ostracism that is their due. They have no place in a civilized society.

What is doubly unacceptable about biological warfare is that it cannot be contained. Yes, certainly, anthrax can be planted in certain letters and facilities, but to the extent that the letters travel to destinations afar, they bring with them the infections that are intended by the perpetrators of this madness. Where Ebola and Nile virus and smallpox are concerned, there is no ability to contain the epidemics that would ensue. They would become global in the same way that an influenza virus becomes global. Ergo, they would affect enemies and allies as well. Such militarized uses are therefore idiotic as well as reprehensible.

The second point I wanted to address is the difference between the types of anthrax bacteria that are naturally occurring and those that are modified by human ingenuity. The first type has been found in animals and animal products and is among the oldest and most heavily researched bacteria known. It is transmitted to people by handling or ingesting contaminated animal products and is rarely inhaled though cases of such are known. The engineered products are smaller, easier to spread via the air, and may also differ from naturally occurring anthrax in that components may be genetically modified or chemically adulterated. No one has any experience with such organisms, and it therefore goes without saying that no one can claim to know how to treat cases of inhalation anthrax caused by militarized pathogens.

This said, no matter how irregular the occurrence, some general laws still hold, and there are theories whose validity is only but slightly affected by the probability that the form of anthrax being spread via mail and other mechanisms would respond in ways that are at least somewhat similar to natural organisms.

Here is the challenge: to kill a bacterium, it is necessary to make contact with the bacterium. This can be done in different ways. For instance, heightened immunity may enable white blood cells to devour the pathogenic organism. Therefore, having a strong and effective immune system is a good line of defense. You might compare it to stockpiling food for the winter. It's easy to have food on the table in autumn after a harvest, but winter requires planning. Lots of white blood cells ready to go to work is like having reserves to call up in the event of an attack.

With real immunity, there is no need to poison by chemicals. Hungry and efficient white blood cells dine on dangerous enemies and save the host from disease.

The other way to kill a pathogen is to use an agent that will kill the microorganism. Implicit in this scheme is the need to make direct contact with the organism. Anyone can do this in a petri dish; the question is whether one can be as effective with a widely dispersed organism that is proliferating madly in the lungs and bloodstream . . . and all the while secreting dangerous toxins into the unfortunate host.

What we know so far is that those people who took something prophylactic prior to exposure or immediately after exposure occurred lived whereas the five people who presented for treatment only after symptoms developed did not fare well. They died, one within only an hour or two of reporting his condition. In other words, at this stage, it would appear that nothing is effective. It is too late to do anything at all to save the life.

So, the third and last issue to cover is protection against infection. Ideally, the best protection is to avoid exposure. Since this is not always possible, one wants to be as resilient as possible in order to fight off infection. This basically means having a healthy immune system and preferably also dealing with other conditions that might be robbing the body of its capacity to handle new risks. Committing to repairing health is thus a sensible first step. Moreover, it is vital that during these careless holiday times that priority one is avoidance of reckless indulgence. This is because the extra sweets and drinks of the socially stimulating days ahead are more congenial to microorganisms than they are to health.

Personally, I think one of the best preparations one can make for the unexpected, unforeseen, and unknowable is to be in constant alignment with Self, with one's own Soul, and with God. I honestly believe that no one can die before his or her time, but also it is much more difficult to suffer and become ill when one is in balance. Ergo, it's always wise to address unresolved issues in every area of life: work, family, finances, and health.

I also think we can acquire more access to our unconscious. While it is difficult to explain in a few sentences, on some level, we already know the past as well as the future. We can forge closer ties with our subconscious and our higher consciousness selves. Once we know we have accomplished this, we can ask our instinctual consciousness to let us know when there is something that requires more wariness. In so doing, we will be protecting ourselves from surprises. It works. It also helps to invite assistance from our spirit guides, angelic helpers, and our own souls. They will lead us safely through our challenges.

Many blessings,

Ingrid

 

 

Poulsbo, Washington

Copyright by Ingrid Naiman 2002, 2006, 2009, 2014

Contact Us