Tag: antrax

About antrax

Subscribe Feeds

De FBI zoektocht naar de daders van de Antrax aanvallen in 2001 is belangrijk voor de vraag waar de COVID-19 uitbraak begon

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Glenn Greenwald heeft een artikel geschreven waarin hij eerst aandacht besteedt aan de antrax aanvallen in de VS na de aanslagen van 9/11 (2001). Hij beschrijft hoe de FBI en anderen zochten naar de dader, waarbij men eerst de schuld in de schoenen van Saddam Hoessein probeerde te schuiven. Toen bleek dat de gevonden antrax, uit het VS militair laboratorium van Fort Detrick kwam, begon men een paar wetenschappers te beschuldigen, waarvan er één werkzaam was in dat laboratorium, met die beschuldiging werd de reputatie van deze mensen ernstig beschadigd, zoals die van dr. Steven Hatfill, een voormalig wetenschapper van de overheid, aan wie de VS overheid later 6 miljoen euro schadevergoeding moest betalen vanwege die valse beschuldiging…… 

Daarna werd microbioloog Bruce Ivins beschuldigd, deze wetenschapper was werkzaam in Fort Detrick, echter voor men hem kon aanklagen zou deze wetenschapper zich het leven hebben benomen…… Wat mij betreft discutabel, daar dit de FBI wel erg goed uitkwam: immers waarom zou Ivins zich het leven benemen als hij onschuldig was? Anders gezegd de kans is groot dat Ivins werd vermoord , waarbij men het op een suïcide liet lijken, dit om hem blijvend als schuldige aan te kunnen wijzen >> dergelijke ‘suïcides’ zijn een specialiteit van zowel de FBI als de CIA……. Overigens is het overgrote deel van de betrokkenen ervan overtuigd dat Ivins niets met de verspreiding van antrax te maken had: het zou zelfs onmogelijk zijn dat hij dit alleen zou hebben kunnen doen……..

De militaire laboratoria van Fort Detrick

Greenwald vindt e.e.a. belangrijk gezien de vraag waar het Coronavirus vandaan kwam, onlangs door Joe Biden nog eens aangewezen als belangrijk onderzoeksproject. Uit onderzoek naar de antrax uit 2001 bleek dat deze was aangepast in het militaire laboratorium in Fort Detrick, zogenaamd om uit te zoeken of er een vaccin tegen deze vorm van antrax was te fabriceren…… Geheel terecht merkt Greenwald op dat de VS weliswaar verdragen tegen het fabriceren van biologische wapens heeft getekend, maar in feite nog steeds bezig is met het fabriceren van dodelijke virussen en bacteriestammen in het bewuste militaire laboratorium……. 

Jammer dat Greenwald niet het met spoed sluiten noemt van Fort Detrick in de zomer van 2019, dit daar er een gevaarlijk virus was ontsnapt……. Het zou overigens zeker zijn dat ook het Coronavirus in dat laboratorium onderwerp van onderzoek was, niet zo vreemd als je bedenkt dat dit virus al lang rondwaart, echter zonder de ernstige gevolgen zoals we die het laatste jaar hebben gezien >> alleen dat laatste is al verdacht en zou kunnen aangeven dat er inderdaad is ‘gedokterd’ aan dit virus (hoewel het Coronavirus nog steeds géén dodelijk virus mag worden genoemd zoals bijvoorbeeld Ebola….)….. Eén theorie is dat het militaire laboratorium van Fort Detrick samenwerkte met een laboratorium in Wuhan, de stad die onterecht werd aangewezen als plek waar het virus voor het eerst zou zijn gevonden, immers uit nader onderzoek vorig voorjaar van stalen bloed, afgenomen in november 2019 in Frankrijk, blijkt dat twee mensen in die maand al waren besmet met het Coronavirus dat intussen zoveel ellende heeft veroorzaakt…. Nader onderzoek heeft overigens uitgewezen dat al voor de ontdekking van de eerste Coronabesmettingen in China er in de VS al mensen waren besmet met het virus*.

Vergeet bij dit alles niet dat gezonde mensen amper last hebben van het virus en militairen zijn over het algemeen in goede conditie, dus de kans dat die ernstig ziek worden van het virus is zeer klein….. Tel daarbij op dat in oktober 2019 de militaire wereldspelen plaatsvonden in Wuhan, waar ook militairen uit de VS aan deel hebben genomen, ofwel het is heel goed mogelijk dat één of meer militairen dit virus onbedoeld hebben overgebracht naar Wuhan……. 

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor world military gamesbesmettelijk

Het is zonder meer een schande dat er ondanks de Coronacrisis nog steeds biologische wapens worden gemaakt, die duidelijk worden gefabriceerd om als wapen in te zetten…. Vorig jaar werd Fort Detrick weer geopend en ging men daar ondanks de ‘pandemie’ door met onderzoek naar biologische wapens als virussen om die in te zetten tegen een toekomstig vijandig land……. (en de bevolking van zo’n land…..)

Lees het schrijven van Greenwald en vorm je eigen mening over deze zaak….

The FBI’s Strange Anthrax Investigation Sheds Light on COVID Lab-Leak Theory and Fauci’s Emails

Mainstream
institutions doubted the FBI had solved the 2001 anthrax case. Either
way, revelations that emerged about U.S. Government bio-labs have
newfound relevance.

Dr.
Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, speaks during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
hearing May 26, 2021 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Photo by
Stefani Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images)
 

One of the most significant events
of the last two decades has been largely memory-holed: the October,
2001 anthrax attacks in the U.S. Beginning just one week after 9/11 and
extending for another three weeks, a highly weaponized and sophisticated
strain of anthrax had been sent around the country through the U.S.
Postal Service addressed to some of the country’s most prominent
political and media figures. As Americans were still reeling from the
devastation of 9/11, the anthrax killed five Americans and sickened
another seventeen.

As part of the extensive reporting I did on the subsequent FBI investigation to find the perpetrator(s), I documented how significant these attacks were in the public consciousness. ABC News,
led by investigative reporter Brian Ross, spent a full week claiming
that unnamed government sources told them that government tests
demonstrated a high likelihood that the anthrax came from Saddam
Hussein’s biological weapons program. The Washington Post, in November, 2001, also raised
“the possibility that [this weaponized strain of anthrax] may have
slipped through an informal network of scientists to Iraq.” Sen. John
McCain (R-AZ) appeared on The David Letterman Show on October
18, 2001, and said: “There is some indication, and I don’t have the
conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have
come from Iraq.” Three days later, McCain appeared on Meet the Press
with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and said of the anthrax perpetrators:
“perhaps this is an international organization and not one within the
United States of America,” while Lieberman said the anthrax was so
finely weaponized that “there’s either a significant amount of money
behind this, or this is state-sponsored, or this is stuff that was
stolen from the former Soviet program” (Lieberman added: “Dr. Fauci can
tell you more detail on that”).

In
many ways, the prospect of a lethal, engineered biological agent
randomly showing up in one’s mailbox or contaminating local communities
was more terrifying than the extraordinary 9/11 attack itself. All sorts
of oddities shrouded the anthrax mailings, including this bizarre admission in 2008 by long-time Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen: “I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure
Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way
from a high government official. I was carrying Cipro way before most
people had ever heard of it.” At the very least, those anthrax attacks
played a vital role in heightening fear levels and a foundational sense
of uncertainty that shaped U.S. discourse and politics for years to
come. It meant that not just Americans living near key power centers
such as Manhattan and Washington were endangered, but all Americans
everywhere were: even from their own mailboxes.

Letter sent to NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, along with weaponized anthrax, in September, 2001

The
FBI first falsely cast suspicion on a former government scientist, Dr.
Steven Hatfill, who had conducted research on mailing deadly anthrax
strains. Following the FBI’s accusations, media outlets began dutifully
implying that Hatfill was the culprit. A January, 2002, New York Times column
by Nicholas Kristof began by declaring: “I think I know who sent out
the anthrax last fall,” then, without naming him, proceeded to perfectly
describe Hatfill in a way that made him easily identifiable to everyone
in that research community. Hatfill sued the U.S. Government, which
eventually ended up paying him close to $6 million in damages before
officially and explicitly exonerating him and apologizing. His lawsuit
against the NYT and Kristof were dismissed since he was never named by the paper, but the columnist also apologized to him six years later.

A
full eight years after the attack, the FBI once again claimed that it
had found the perpetrator: this time, it was the microbiologist Bruce
Ivins, a long-time “biodefense” researcher at the U.S. Army’s infectious
disease research lab in Fort Detrick, Maryland. Yet before he could be
indicted, Ivins died, apparently by suicide,
to avoid prosecution. As a result, the FBI was never required to prove
its case in court. The agency insisted, however, that there was no doubt
that Ivins was the anthrax killer, citing genetic analysis of the
anthrax strain that they said conclusively matched the anthrax found in
Ivins’ U.S. Army lab, along with circumstantial evidence pointing to
him.

Subscribe now

But virtually every mainstream institution other than the FBI harbored doubts. The New York Times quoted
Ivins’ co-workers as calling into question the FBI’s claims (“The
investigators looked around, they decided they had to find somebody”),
and the paper also cited “vocal skepticism from key members of
Congress.” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), one of the targets of the anthrax
letters, said explicitly
he did not believe Ivins could have carried out the attacks alone. Sen.
Charles Grassley (R-IA) and then-Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), a physicist,
said the same to me in interviews. The nation’s three largest newspapers
— The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal
— all editorially called for independent investigations on the grounds
that the FBI’s evidence was inconclusive if not outright unconvincing.
One of the country’s most prestigious science journals, Nature, published an editorial under the headline “Case Not Closed,” arguing, about the FBI’s key claims, that “the jury is still out on those questions.”

When
an independent investigation was finally conducted in 2011 into the
FBI’s scientific claims against Ivins, much of that doubt converted into
full-blown skepticism. As The New York Times put it —
in a 2008 article headlined “Expert Panel Is Critical of F.B.I. Work in
Investigating Anthrax Letters” —  the review “concludes that the bureau overstated the strength of genetic analysis linking the mailed anthrax to a supply kept by Bruce E. Ivins.” A Washington Post article —
headlined: “Anthrax report casts doubt on scientific evidence in FBI
case against Bruce Ivins” — announced that “the report reignited a
debate that has simmered among some scientists and others who have
questioned the strength of the FBI’s evidence against Ivins.”

An in-depth joint investigation by ProPublica, PBS and McClatchy — published under the headline “New Evidence Adds Doubt to FBI’s Case Against Anthrax Suspect” — concluded
that “newly available documents and the accounts of Ivins’ former
colleagues shed fresh light on the evidence and, while they don’t
exonerate Ivins, are at odds with some of the science and circumstantial
evidence that the government said would have convicted him of capital
crimes.” It added: “even some of the government’s science consultants
wonder whether the real killer is still at large.” The report itself,
issued by the National Research Council, concluded that while the
components of the anthrax in Ivins’ lab were “consistent” with the
weaponized anthrax that had been sent, “the scientific link between the
letter material and flask number RMR-1029 [found in Ivins’ lab] is not
as conclusive as stated in the DOJ Investigative Summary.”

In
short, these were serious and widespread mainstream doubts about the
FBI’s case against Ivins, and those have never been resolved. U.S.
institutions seemingly agreed to simply move on without ever addressing
lingering scientific and other evidentiary questions regarding whether
Ivins was really involved in the anthrax attacks and, if so, how it was
possible that he could have carried out this sophisticated attack within
a top-secret U.S. Army lab acting alone. So whitewashed is this history
that doubts about whether the FBI found the real perpetrator are now
mocked by smug Smart People as a fringe conspiracy theory rather than
what they had been: the consensus of mainstream institutions.

But what we do know for certain
from this anthrax investigation is quite serious. And because it is
quite relevant to the current debates over the origins of COVID-19, it
is well-worth reviewing. A trove of emails
from Dr. Anthony Fauci — who was the government’s top infectious
disease specialist during the AIDS pandemic, the anthrax attacks, and
the COVID pandemic — was published on Monday by BuzzFeed after
they were produced pursuant to a FOIA request. Among other things, they
reveal that in February and March of last year — at the time that Fauci
and others were dismissing any real possibility that the coronavirus
inadvertently escaped from a lab, to the point that the Silicon Valley
monopolies Facebook and Google banned any discussion of that theory —
Fauci and his associates and colleagues were privately discussing the possibility that the virus had escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, possibly as part of a U.S.-funded joint program with the scientists at that lab.

Last week, BBC reported
that “in recent weeks the controversial claim that the pandemic might
have leaked from a Chinese laboratory — once dismissed by many as a
fringe conspiracy theory — has been gaining traction.” President Biden ordered
an investigation into this lab-leak possibility. And with Democrats now
open to this possibility, “Facebook reversed course Thursday and said
that it would no longer remove posts that claim the virus is man-made,” reported The Washington Post. Nobody can rationally claim to know the origins of COVID, and that is exactly why — as I explained in an interview on the Rising
program this morning — it should be so disturbing that Silicon Valley
monopolies and the WHO/Fauci-led scientific community spent a full year
pretending to have certainty about that “debunked” theory that they
plainly did not possess, to the point where discussions of it were prohibited on social media.

What
we know — but have largely forgotten — from the anthrax case is now
vital to recall. What made the anthrax attacks of 2001 particularly
frightening was how sophisticated and deadly the strain was. It was not
naturally occurring anthrax. Scientists quickly identified it as the
notorious Ames strain, which researchers at the U.S. Army lab in Fort
Detrick had essentially invented. As PBS’ Frontline program put it
in 2011: “in October 2001, Northern Arizona University microbiologist
Dr. Paul Keim identified that the anthrax used in the attack letters was
the Ames strain, a development he described as ‘chilling’ because that
particular strain was developed in U.S. government laboratories.” As Dr.
Keim recalled in that Frontline interview about his 2001 analysis of the anthrax strain:

We
were surprised it was the Ames strain. And it was chilling at the same
time, because the Ames strain is a laboratory strain that had been
developed by the U.S. Army as a vaccine-challenge strain. We knew that
it was highly virulent. In fact, that’s why the Army used it, because it
represented a more potent challenge to vaccines that were being
developed by the U.S. Army. It wasn’t just some random type of anthrax
that you find in nature; it was a laboratory strain, and that was very
significant to us, because that was the first hint that this might
really be a bioterrorism event.

Why
was the U.S. government creating exotic and extraordinarily deadly
infectious bacterial strains and viruses that, even in small quantities,
could kill large numbers of people? The official position of the U.S.
Government is that it does not engage in offensive bioweapons
research: meaning research designed to create weaponized viruses as
weapons of war. The U.S. has signed treaties barring such research. But
in the wake of the anthrax attacks — especially once the FBI’s own
theory was that the anthrax was sent by a U.S. Army scientist from his
stash at Fort Detrick — U.S. officials were forced to acknowledge that
they do engage in defensive bioweapons research: meaning
research designed to allow the development of vaccines and other
defenses in the event that another country unleashes a biological
attack.

But
ultimately, that distinction barely matters. For both offensive and
defensive bioweapons research, scientists must create, cultivate,
manipulate and store non-natural viruses in their labs, whether to study
them for weaponization or for vaccines. A fascinating-in-retrospect New Yorker article
from March, 2002, featured the suspicions of molecular biologist
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, who had “strongly implied that the F.B.I. was
moving much more slowly in its anthrax investigation than it had any
reason to.” Like The New York Times, the magazine (without
naming him) detailed her speculation that Dr. Hatfill was the
perpetrator (though her theory about his motive — that he wanted to
scare people about anthrax in order to increase funding for research —
was virtually identical to the FBI’s ultimate accusations about Dr.
Ivins’ motives).

But
the key point that is particularly relevant now is what all of this
said about the kind of very dangerous research the U.S. Government,
along with other large governments, conducts in bioweapons research
labs. Namely, they manufacture and store extremely lethal biological
agents that, if they escape from the lab either deliberately or
inadvertently, can jeopardize the human species. As the article put it:

The
United States officially forswore biological-weapons development in
1969, and signed the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, along with many
other nations. But Rosenberg believes that the American bioweapons
program, which won’t allow itself to be monitored, may not be in strict
compliance with the convention. If the perpetrator of the anthrax
attacks is who she thinks it is, that would put the American program in a
bad light, and it would prove that she was right to demand that the
program be monitored.

If
the government is saying that the perpetrator was probably an American,
it’s hard to imagine how it couldn’t have been an American who worked
in a government-supported bioweapons lab. Think back to the panicky
month of October [2001]: would knowing that have made you less nervous,
or more?

Having
extensively reported on the FBI’s investigation into the anthrax case
and ultimate claim to have solved it, I continue to share all the doubts
that were so widely expressed at the time about whether any of that was
true. But what we know for certain is that the U.S. government and
other governments do conduct research which requires the manufacture of
deadly viruses. Dr. Fauci has acknowledged that the U.S. government indirectly funded
research by the Wuhan Institute of Virology into coronaviruses, though
he denies that this was for so-called “gain of function” research, whereby naturally occurring viruses are manipulated to make them more transmissible and/or more harmful to humans.

We
do not know for sure if the COVID-19 virus escaped from the Wuhan lab,
another lab, or jumped from animals to humans. But what we do know for
certain — from the anthrax investigation — is that governments most
definitely conduct the sort of research that could produce novel
coronaviruses. Dr. Rosenberg, the subject of the 2002 New Yorker article,
was suggesting that the F.B.I. was purposely impeding its own
investigation because they knew that the anthrax actually came from the
U.S. government’s own lab and wanted to prevent exposure of the real
bio-research that is done there. We should again ponder why the
pervasive mainstream doubts about the F.B.I.’s case against Ivins have
been memory-holed. We should also reflect on what we learned about
government research into highly lethal viruses from that still-strange
episode.

To support the independent journalism we are doing here, please subscribe and/or purchase a gift subscription for others:

Subscribe now

Give a gift subscription

Share

========================================

* Zie : ‘Study Suggests Covid-19 Was In The U.S. Weeks Earlier Than
Thought, Before First Public Cases In China‘ (dit artikel van 1
december 2020 stelt wel dat het virus al weken eerder in de VS werd
gevonden, vóór de eerste melding in China, eind december 2020….)

Zie ook: ‘VS universiteiten stellen na onderzoek dat het Coronavirus al 2 maanden vóór december 2019 rondging‘

‘Coronavirus: China door het slijk halen‘

‘Coronavirus: alles wijst erop dat dit virus uit een militair laboratorium van de VS komt‘

‘Coronavirus hysterie: de nieuwe anti-Chinese campagne in de VS bestaat (alweer) uit leugens‘

‘Coronavirus: hysterische en belachelijke beschuldigingen aan adres China‘ 

‘Coronavirus: militaire laboratoria werken aan biologische wapens als virussen >> waarom heeft niemand daar commentaar op?‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht!!)

‘VS
loopt achter de ‘Coronafeiten’ aan en geeft nu zelfs Rusland de schuld
van het manipuleren van de verkiezingen door haar humanitaire hulp‘
(humanitaire hulp aan de VS wel te verstaan, een beschuldiging van
uiterst onbeschofte proporties., maar ja het gaat dan ook om de VS, de
grootste terreurentiteit ter wereld……)


‘Coronavirus tragedie misbruikt voor racisme en het zaaien van haat”

‘Coronavirus? De intensieve veehouderij is een bron van gevaarlijke besmettelijke ziekten en antibioticaresistentie‘

‘Antrax ‘aanvallen’ na 911, de antrax kwam uit VS overheidsvoorraad, verspreid door………‘

Opwarming van Arctisch gebied laat besmettelijke ziekten vrijkomen uit de permafrost

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

De
opwarming van het Arctisch gebied kan besmettelijke ziekten doen
vrijkomen uit de permafrost: vorige week werd daar een record
temperatuur gemeten van 45 graden Celsius…..

Gisteren
kwam Unearthed (onderdeel Greenpeace) met een verontrustend artikel
over de voortdurende hittegolf in het arctisch gebied, waar de
temperatuur in het noorden 38 graden Celsius hoog was en de
landtemperatuur zelfs de 45 graden C. aantikte, een temperatuur
die men zelfs in Groot-Brittannië nooit heeft gemeten (en ik dacht
ook niet in ons land of andere ons omliggende landen)

Een
ernstige zaak daar door die hoge temperaturen de permafrost veel
sneller ontdooit dan de gemiddelde wetenschapper ooit heeft durven
dromen (nachtmerrie)….. Vandaar ook dat een intussen flink aantal
wetenschappers ervan overtuigd is dat de temperatuur aan het einde
van deze eeuw zelfs de 3 graden Celsius fiks te boven zal gaan……
Dit zal tot gevolg hebben dat gesmolten ijs en sneeuw van de beide
polen de zeespiegel zover zal doen stijgen dat het vrijwel zeker is
dat over 100 jaar een groot deel van ons land onder water zal
staan…… 

Dat de
temperatuur zelfs met meer dan 3 graden C. zal stijgen is zeker
gezien het feit dat ontdooiende permafrost grote hoeveelheden
methaangas bevat, een veel sterker broeikasgas dan CO2 (dat overigens
ook tegelijk in grote hoeveelheden vrijkomt…..)….. Het vrijkomen
van dat gas zorgt voor een cumulatief effect, ofwel doordat er meer
methaangas vrijkomt stijgt de temperatuur nog verder, waardoor er nog
meer permafrost ontdooit, waardoor de temperatuur nog verder
stijgt….. enz. enz……

Gemiddeld
is er de laatste 10, 20 jaar een halve meter permafrost ‘ontdooit’
(het is een iets ander proces dan gewoon ontdooien van ijs) en dat is
volgens wetenschappers een niet misselijke hoeveelheid van grond die
al duizenden jaren bevroren was….. Volgens een aantal
wetenschappers loert er althans voor mens en dier een nog groter
gevaar in de bevroren ondergrond en dat zijn besmettelijke ziekten
die wij niet kennen, dan wel waarvan we dachten dat we die de baas
waren…… Ziekten die enorme aantallen mensen- en dierenlevens
kunnen eisen, mochten deze besmettelijke ziekten inderdaad vrijkomen
en levensvatbaar zijn…….. 

Waar men
al bang voor was, blijkt de waarheid te zijn, bacteriën en virussen
die werden ingesloten in de permafrost zullen vrijkomen, eerder was het nog de vraag of die bacteriën en virussen het proces
kunnen overleven en beste bezoeker, dat kunnen ze…… Al is het
niet zeker over welke termijn ze nog levensvatrbaar zijn na ingevroren te zijn geweest, dus na hoeveel
jaar ingevroren te zijn geweest. Bacteriën diep
uit de permafrost zijn levensvatbaar, al is het nog niet duidelijk na hoeveel jaar, voor
virussen heeft men intussen berekend dat die tot 30.000 jaar oud
levensvatbaar zijn, maar men vermoed dat dit nog veel verder gaat……..

Voor
bacteriën behoeven we voorlopig niet bang te zijn, daar we
antibiotica hebben (zo lang het duurt; zo meer daarover) en een ziekte als de pest zal daarom
niet veel slachtoffers eisen. De pest heeft in Siberië inderdaad een
paar slachtoffers geëist, mensen die diepgevroren vlees uit de
permafrost hadden gegeten….. 

Gevaarlijker is Anthrax
of zoals wij het noemen Miltvuur,
een ziekte die ook lang kan overleven, echter ook deze bacteriële
ziekte is te bestrijden met antibiotica, met een heel belangrijke
opmerking: zolang wij antibioticaresistentie de baas kunnen en dat
wordt met onze doodsindustrie die men vleesindustrie noemt steeds
moeilijker….. Voorts zijn farmaceuten niet geneigd verder te zoeken naar
nieuwe antibiotica daar bacteriën zich razendsnel snel wapenen tegen
een nieuw antibioticum, anders gezegd: daar kan de spuugrijke
farmaceutische maffia te weinig aan verdienen en dan kan je sterven wat dat geteisem betreft…..

Dan blijft de vraag of de mens wel
een gevaarlijk vrijkomend virus kan overleven, zo zal een pokkenepidemie (intussen door
vaccinatie uitgestorven) tientallen zo niet honderden miljoenen
slachtoffers maken……… Uiterst verontrustend, immers we hebben met de griepvirussen en nu weer met het Coronavirus gezien hoe snel deze ziekten zich kunnen verspreiden over de aarde…. En dan zijn de pokken nog maar één
(en een bekend) virus……

De wetenschappers in het het artikel van Unearthed stellen dat het belangrijk is dat de mens zich wapend tegen deze ziekten, zoals het volgens hen met het Coronavirus niet de vraag was of dit zou kunnen gebeuren, maar wanneer en toch heeft men zich uitermate slecht voorbereid, wat zeg ik: niet voorbereid! Laat staan dat men zich zal wapenen tegen virusziekten die vrijkomen uit de permafrost…….

The
permafrost pandemic: could the melting Arctic release a deadly
disease?

The permafrost pandemic: could the melting Arctic release a deadly ...

Experts fear
extractive industries in the Arctic may revive long-dormant diseases.
Photo: Lev FedoseyevTASS, Getty Images

As the Arctic heats
up, a group of scientists are interrogating the risk that deadly
diseases from the distant past may return

Last
week it was hotter in parts of the Arctic circle than it has ever
been in the United Kingdom.

And
the satellite data suggests that while the air in north eastern
Siberia was a scorching 38C, the land surface temperature was even
higher ⁠— a
panic-inducing 45C.

This
record-breaking heatwave – which is, make no mistake, linked to
global heating – comes as the entire world remains gripped by the
Covid-19 pandemic, a microscopic virus that has killed half a million
people and paralysed the global economy.

The
two crises may be less far removed than they first appear. 

The
Arctic plays an important role in the story of climate change. Not
only is it warming at least twiceas
fast as the rest of the world, what happens there reverberates
everywhere. 

Rising sea levels? That’s the melting ice. Runaway
climate change? That’s the methane and carbon stored in the
permafrost. 

Less
understood is the role the region may play in the release of
long-dormant diseases, a veritable sci fi plot that fascinates
journalists but is a pretty recent field of proper scientific
research.

For
decades only the Russians were really investigating whether and for
how long microbes could survive in the permafrost, but the wider
scientific community is now taking note.

Last
November in Hannover, Germany, scientists from around the world
covering all the relevant fields of study – climatology, geology,
virology – met for the
first major skillshare focusing on the threat of microbes revived
by the thawing of the permafrost.

The vanishing
permafrost 

The
first speaker at the Hannover meet was Dr Vladimir Romanovsky,
Professor of Geophysics, University of Alaska Fairbanks and an expert
of the permafrost.

Because
it’s important to understand that these mysterious microbes are
frozen in the earth rather than the polar ice sheets, the melting of
which is causing sea levels to rise.

What
is the permafrost?

It’s
any earth material at or below 0 degrees celsius for 2 or more
consecutive years. Earth material can be anything: organic soil,
mineral soil, sand, gravel. Glacier ice may fit this definition but
permafrost scientists tend not to include it or sea ice.

The
permafrost, Dr Romanovsky stressed to Unearthed,
does not melt. It thaws. There’s ice in there but once it melts,
the land remains. When that happens, it ceases to be permafrost —
and what’s been frozen is no
longer.

That
thawing could lead to the release of the permafrost’s enormous
reserves of greenhouse gases CO2 and methane, one of the tipping
points that could herald runaway climate change.

“Permafrost
is already thawing from the top down in many areas,” Dr Romanovsky
said, explaining that though the permafrost further underground
remains frozen year round, vast tracts of the upper permafrost – 
up to ½ a metre deep – are experiencing a totemic shift.

“We
observed in the very north of the Canadian Arctic, where permafrost
temperatures are still around -14C, it’s already thawing from the
top. That means part of the material that has been frozen for
thousands of years is no longer continuously frozen.”

“That’s
a recent development, only in the last 10 or 20 years.”

Rapidly
rising temperatures in the region are increasing the depth of the
permafrost’s active layer, the bit – most often near the surface
– that for stretches of the summer has water instead of ice.

Dr
Romanovsky said: “How much of the permafrost has already thawed?
Not that much, because the process is just starting. 

“The
increase in the active layer started in the 1990s and the long-term
thawing of the permafrost only started very recently, the last 10
years or so. It’s just the beginning. But it will accelerate with
time, and we should expect the degradation of permafrost to pick up
over the next few decades.”

Darker
shades of purple indicate higher percentages of permanently frozen
ground. Map: Philippe Rekacewicz, UNEP/GRID-Arendal, data from
International Permafrost Association, 1998. Circumpolar Active-Layer
Permafrost System (CAPS), version 1.0.

Life finds a way

The
permafrost need not entirely thaw nor be thawed year round for
microorganisms frozen in the earth to come to life or make their way
to the talik — a layer
above the permafrost that is rarely if ever frozen.

That
active layer, ever larger and active for longer, becomes a new
habitat, where “an increase in unfrozen water is enough to activate
some biological processes.”

In
fact, these microbes – awakened from their long slumber – may
take the opportunity to move towards the taliks, where it’s less
likely to refreeze.

After
Romanovsky, the Hannover crowd was later addressed by Jean Michel
Claverie, a virologist at Aix-Marseille University, who works with
his wife Chantal Abergel, a celebrated expert in her own right.

“The
idea that bacteria can survive for very long I think is definitely
accepted,” Dr Claverie told Unearthed,
“the remaining debate is for how long? Is it a million years?
500,000 years? Is it 50,000 years?”  

“But
yes there are extremely good papers that say yes you can revive
bacteria from deep permafrost.”

The
couple uses DNA viruses
(more on that shortly) retrieved from permafrost around the Kolyma
River in northeastern Siberia and infects amoeba in order to safely
determine whether they still function as they are meant to.

Dr
Abergel said: “This is a proof of principle we are running in the
lab. We are able to revive viruses out of ancient permafrost samples.
So far we have not been able to go up to 30,000 years, but it may
come at some point.”

The watchlist

So
which are the dormant diseases being studied? Is there really
permafrost pandemic we should fear? Scientists aren’t sure. 

According
to Abergel and Claverie, DNA viruses are the greatest cause for
concern. They are hardier than RNA viruses so more likely to emerge
from their frozen state relatively intact.

“RNA
viruses seem to be much more fragile, normally they should not be
able to survive that long. DNA viruses because they are more
chemically stable are more robust to this kind of process,” Dr
Claverie said.

“Nobody
has ever tried to revive RNA viruses from the permafrost because RNA
viruses, for example, do not infect amoeba or other things. And the
only way you can assess the survival of viruses is using hosts.” 

That
would mean the microbes of Spanish Flu – which, like Covid-19, is
an RNA virus – foundin
the graveyards in northern Alaska are extremely unlikely to jump out
of the ice.

The
best-known DNA virus, and one which the work of the married
virologists relates to, is smallpox — the
deadliest disease in modern history, but one which has been
eradicated due to vaccinations.

Dr
Claverie is mostly dismissive of the threat posed by revived bacteria
diseases – like Plague, for example – because “they will kill a
couple of people but now we have 

antibiotics.”

Perhaps
the most well-known outbreak of an Arctic disease was of the bacteria
variety: Anthrax.

But
the feverishly reported 2016 episode
– which
killed thousands of reindeer in Siberia and infected around a dozen
people – may not have actually emerged from the permafrost, a
recent study suggested.

Romanovsky
and his peers believe the outbreak was so severe because the Russian
government had changed its policy on vaccinating animals, which they
have since undone.

An
outbreak of anthrax in Siberia killed thousands of reindeer in 2016.
Photo: Denis Sinyakov, Greenpeace

Dr
Brigitta Evengård, who led in putting together the historic Hannover
event, was far less ready to dismiss the threat of frozen bacteria —
she sees the emerging antibiotic
resistance crisis as a threat multiplier.

After
returning from a brief hiatus practicing medicine as Sweden’s
doctors were called in to support Covid-19 efforts, she told
Unearthed:
“My worst case scenario? What’s happening already every now and
then, there was an outbreak in Madagascar just a few years back. 

And
that’s antibiotic resistant Pasteurella pestis… plague.”

Though
she admitted the risk of antibiotic-resistant diseases emerging is
thin, it is not impossible.

“The
antibiotic resistance pandemic will kill annually more than the
coronavirus pandemic.”

As
for possible pandemics from the Arctic? “The two that we know could
come out of the 

permafrost are anthrax and that’s pox viruses,
other than that it’s pandora’s box.”

Finding a host

Once
unfrozen, these permafrost microbes must find a host in order to
survive. But they have a problem: there aren’t many people who live
in the area, and those that do – often indigenous villages – are
not in frequent contact with outsiders, meaning the spread of
infection would likely be limited.

“The
real danger is not the thawing of permafrost per se,” Dr Claverie
said, “it’s that humans – the Russians mainly – are now
starting to exploit the Arctic regions, and are making big holes by
which to excavate layers permafrost that are up to a million years
old.” 

“This
is the recipe for disaster because you have humans here and you have
the virus when it is fresh. When viruses are released from the
permafrost in nature, what happens? They fall into the river. They
are exposed to oxygen, which is bad for viruses. They are exposed to
light, which is also bad for viruses. And so they will not be revived
for very long if they don’t find a host very quickly.”

So
it’s like the permafrost is the ocean, and the microbes the sharks.
Don’t go surfing when there are sharks in the water and things
should be alright.

Dr
Abergel said: “If [the viruses] come into contact with a proper
host then they will reactivate. So if you put a human in a place with
frozen viruses associated with pandemic then those humans could be
infected and replicate the virus and start a new pandemic.”

But
as Dr Evengård pointed out, humans are not the only potential hosts
out there.

“With
climate change, we have movement of animals. People, we tend to stay
in our homes if we are well enough. If you are near the coastline of
Bangladesh, let’s say, you may already be moving inland. The
biggest migration of climate refugees is still inside their home
countries. But animals, they move.”

She
stressed that climate change has sent the global ecosystem into flux,
and it’s nigh impossible to say where things will end up.

Moose
and hares, for instance, are migrating
north as vegetation crops up, and then of course there’s birds
and fish and their sometimes globe-spanning migratory patterns. 

“These
animals can bring microorganisms into virgin areas,” Dr Evengård
said, “and things will happen that we simply can’t predict. You
can say the Arctic is spacious and not so populated but there are
people coming and going – yes, miners – and there are
microorganisms coming in there with animals and even coming up from
the earth. The dynamic that is ongoing is new.”

The
Coronavirus experience, she said, “has just reinforced my belief
that what I’m doing is absolutely important.”

“I’m
not surprised, it’s not a question of if this was going to happen
it was when. The only enemy we really have is our own ignorance —
that we’re not preparing for
this. We have all this knowledge, it’s really not that new. This
dynamic process that we’re getting into with the climate change
era. We should be better prepared, instead we’re sitting here
paralysed by fear.” 

“This
is a warning from nature and it’s going to happen again and again
and again, I’m sure.”

================================

Zie ook:

‘The Siberian plague‘ (ondanks het onderwerp met prachtige foto’s)

‘Hittegolf in Siberië: binnen de poolcirkel 38 graden Celsius‘

‘Siberië kampt al maanden met uitzonderlijk hoge temperaturen: “25,4graden, terwijl het gemiddeld 0 graden is”‘

‘Niet
eerder getoonde satellietfoto’s laten zien dat grote delen van Arctisch
gebied in brand staan >> klimaatkantelpunt gepasseerd‘ (zie ook de links in dat bericht)

‘Grote Arctische gebieden in Siberië, Groenland, Canada en Alaska branden: klimaatkantelpunt nadert met rasse schreden‘

‘Klimaatverandering: inwoners Bratsk (Siberië) stikken in de rook van bosbranden…….‘

Wildfires
Increasingly Consuming Siberian Forests, Scientists Warn

People
in Bratsk Petition Kremlin over Pollution from Forest Fires

LANCE
MODIS

Wildfires
Scorch World’s Largest Freshwater Lake

Oil
Pipelines Threatened by Wildfires Amid Disputes over the Scale of the
Destruction

Earth
Nullschool

‘‘Methaangasboer’ ontsnappend uit de Oost-Arctische Plaat kan de wereld zoals wij die kennen vernietigen‘

‘Aantal CO2 deeltjes in de atmosfeer op voor de mens nooit eerder vertoond hoog niveau‘

Mueller, de FBI oplichter, gaat onderzoek naar ‘Trump-Rusland connectie’ uitvoeren…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

In de VS (en daarbuiten) spreken de reguliere mediaorganen hosanna over de aanstelling van sjoemelaar en oplichter Mueller, de ex-FBI chef, als hoofdonderzoeker naar ‘de Trump – Rusland connectie’.

Dezelfde Mueller deed onderzoek naar de antrax aanvallen in de VS na de 911 terreuraanvallen in 2001. Hoewel hij niet verantwoordelijk was, voor de bewering, dat het Irak van Saddam Hoessein achter die antrax aanvallen zat, heeft hij de 6 jaar daarna flink z’n best gedaan om zoveel mogelijk te verdoezelen, de zaak te vertroebelen voor het volk en de zaak zolang mogelijk te rekken….. Immers de VS besloot mede op basis van die antrax aanvallen en de massavernietigingswapens door/van Irak, dat land aan te vallen…….. Overigens bleek na onderzoek, dat de gebruikte antrax uit een legerlaboratorium van de VS kwam…….

Gisteren bracht Anti-Media een artikel over deze zaak, een artikel dat eerder op MintPress News verscheen, geschreven door Robbie Martin. Hij concludeert dat er grote overeenkomsten zijn, met de eerdere aanklachten tegen Saddam Hoessein en die nu tegen Rusland worden gebruikt.

Mensen, je weet niet wat je leest en ik zelf kan (alweer) maar één conclusie trekken: de VS wordt geregeerd door een stel psychopathische gekken, waar de echte macht voor een groot deel niet eens bij de regering ligt, maar bij de ‘Deep-State’*

Anthrax
And “Russiagate”: Mueller’s Special Counsel Appointment Should
Raise Concern

May
31, 2017 at 10:30 am

Written
by Anti-Media
News Desk

(MPN) Amidst
the overwhelming bipartisan
praise given to former FBI Director Robert Mueller for
his appointment as special counsel in the Trump-Russia investigation,
few media outlets have voiced concern over his credentials.
Mueller’s unforgivably
poor performance during
an investigation into the 2001 anthrax scare should give pause to
those who hope to find out the truth about Russia’s alleged
involvement in U.S. politics.


In
October 2001 – less than a month after the 9/11 terror attacks –
weaponized anthrax spores were
sent through the U.S. mail system to
prominent politicians and journalists. The anthrax attacks generated
hysteria and panic, as well as created the perception that terrorism
was going to remain a major threat, with 9/11 representing just the
first wave.

The
anthrax attacks also provided the George W. Bush administration with
the opportunity to create a three-way connection in the public
consciousness between the 9/11 attacks, the anthrax attacks, and
Saddam Hussein. The “WMD lies” that would lead the U.S. into war
in Iraq were hatched from one initial lie: that the anthrax mailings
had fingerprints that could be traced
back to the
Iraqi government’s biological weapons program and that they
represented a second wave of terrorism.

Major
players in the U.S. government made
strong efforts to link the anthrax attacks to the Iraqi government –
efforts that Mueller played no part in. But in the following six
years, Mueller did participate in a public disinformation campaign
that muddied the waters regarding the 2001 anthrax attacks.

He
and his bureau were in a position to unravel the underlying rationale
for mounting an illegal invasion that left over a million Iraqi
civilians dead. Instead, they worked to bury that rationale and stoke
fears that would help to prop up public support for the invasion.
Looking back at the way in which the case was handled, it is clear
that Mueller may not be the most suitable candidate for heading the
ongoing investigation into “Russiagate.”

Flimsy
evidence and false accusations

As
early as Nov. 9, 2001 – less than one month after the anthrax
attacks began – the FBI had identified
anthrax in the letters as being of the “Ames strain,” a
strain of anthrax that was isolated by U.S. researchers in 1981. Due
to its domestic origins, the FBI concluded that the attacks were
likely perpetrated by someone working within the U.S. and not by a
foreign actor.

Despite
having this knowledge, the Bush administration sent then-Secretary of
State Colin Powell to the UN with
a prop vial of anthrax in
order to obtain support for the Iraq War. Mueller could’ve turned
the course of events at the time by making sure the press was aware
that the most likely culprit was inside the U.S., but instead chose
not to interfere with Bush’s neoconservative agenda. Powell’s
presentation of “evidence” of Iraq’s alleged possession of
chemical and biological weapons formed a major part of the U.S.
effort to build a case for war in Iraq – although the country’s
possession of these weapons would eventually prove to be a falsehood.

In
another pivotal moment in the case, Mueller privately briefed Senator
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and former Senator Tom Daschle – both of
whom were targeted with anthrax letters – regarding the FBI’s
prime suspect, a retired
bioweapons scientist named Steven Hatfil.

Mueller’s
best evidence came from bloodhounds, who had evidently traced
the scent from the anthrax letters to Hatfil’s apartment.
What Mueller neglected to mention is that bloodhound scent evidence
is often
inaccurate and has even led to wrongful convictions.
But it was too late for Hatfil, as the press had already begun to
crucify him after the FBI came forward with its “evidence.” Some
agents even used the bloodhounds as props in press conferences that
could be better described as publicity stunts.

Hatfil’s
life was turned upside-down by the accusations. He was hounded by the
FBI and other authorities, facing deliberate
harassment tactics often referred to as “bumper locking.” He
tearfully denied the FBI’s accusations during two news conferences
held in August 2002, but by that time his life and career had already
been shredded to pieces due to his naming as a “person of interest”
in the investigation. Hatfil would later receive
a $4.6-million-dollar
settlement from the FBI in 2008 after
filing a lawsuit against the Bureau, but only after five years of
litigation and the destruction of his personal and professional
reputation.

But
Mueller and the FBI weren’t done yet. That same year, they ended
up pinning
the attacks on a man named Bruce Ivins,
a senior biodefense researcher at Maryland’s Fort Detrick military
installation. Their accusation would lead Ivins to commit
suicide by overdosing on
a combination of Tylenol and codeine, a method of suicide that some
thought to be an unlikely choice for someone with Ivins’ level of
biological expertise.

Even
after claiming to have solved the case, the FBI faced
skepticism regarding its conclusions.
Leahy spoke to Mueller at a three-hour public hearing, stating that
he did not believe that Ivins was the only culprit:

“I
believe there were others involved either before or after the fact
who were complicit…I believe there are others involved who could be
charged with murder.”

Leahy’s
Republican counterpart, former Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania,
also questioned the FBI’s findings:

“I’ve
looked over a good bit of the evidence on the anthrax case just to
contrast prosecutors’ opinions…and I have grave doubts about
sufficiency of evidence for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

When
the FBI decided to give a press conference on the final conclusion of
their investigation, Mueller declined to attend, eating dinner at a
restaurant about a block away. He instead allowed two lower-ranking
investigators to sweat their way through the surprisingly adversarial
questions that were lobbed at them by attending journalists.

Video
of this press conference shows
an almost unanimously incredulous press pool, some even visibly angry
over the series of non-answers given to them by FBI officials. They
offered only one piece of physical evidence to the public: a flask
they said contained spores that they claimed Ivins used to grow a
colony of the “Ames strain” during his off-hours at Ft. Detrick.
But there was one major problem with their “smoking gun”
evidence.

The
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was asked by the FBI to verify the
evidence but
concluded that
anthrax found in the flask could not be traced back to anthrax
contained in the letters. But instead of waiting for the NAS to
release these findings, Mueller allowed the FBI to pre-empt the NAS
with their own press conference. A 2011 report from the National
Research Council also
called the FBI’s findings into question.

Russiagate:
why the anthrax case matters

In
light of his poor handling of the anthrax case, one has to wonder:
why is the media now celebrating Mueller’s appointment as special
counsel for the Russia-Trump investigation? One doesn’t need to
look far to find multiple parallels between the false WMD claims made
by the Bush administration – which had their origins in the anthrax
scare – and the media’s current obsession with finding evidence
of Russian meddling in last year’s election. In both cases, the
media fixated on questionable evidence and the creation of an
artificial “bogeyman” to advance a deeper, more sinister agenda.

Both
the false WMD claims that led the U.S. into the Iraq War and the
ongoing Russia scaremongering campaign have relied on a vague
three-way connection between unrelated parties in order to shoehorn
in a larger national security and foreign policy scheme. Under Bush,
this was done by artificially connecting 9/11 to the anthrax attacks,
and then to Saddam Hussein, creating a climate of fear. That same
climate is being recreated now – only this time, the specter is
Russia.

Democrats
and their allies are using a similar psychological warfare campaign
to create a fictitious three-way connection between Trump, Russia and
WikiLeaks in the public consciousness during a time of emotional
trauma for Democratic voters. The larger theory posits that all three
parties were colluding with each other to take down Hillary Clinton —
even if no proof has been offered that Russia
was WikiLeaks’ source.

This
narrative has been bolstered by the use of weaponized mainstream
media terms like “fake news” and an increasingly prevalent
McCarthy-esque mindset among Clinton voters who are quick to accuse
their opponents of being Putin apologists. Even supporters of Bernie
Sanders, who was running on the Democratic ticket just as Clinton
was, have faced such accusations.

Americans
should not want a man who knew the Bush administration was trying to
create a fictional connection between Hussein, anthrax and 9/11 to
have the final verdict on another new three-way fiction: the
conspiratorial web being woven between WikiLeaks, Trump and Russia.

By Robbie
Martin /
Republished with permission / MintPress
News / Report
a typo 

Robbie
Martin is a writer and documentary filmmaker behind  “A
Very Heavy Agenda,
& American
Anthrax.
 He also co-hosts Media Roots Radio with Abby Martin.

Follow
Robbie on Twitter at @FluorescentGrey

=============================

* Deep State: een samenwerkingsverband van de geheime diensten, politici die als lobbyist grote bedrijven dienen (waaronder oliemaatschappijen en de wapenindustrie), hoge invloedrijke ambtenaren (als Mueller), het militair-industrieel complex en de financiële maffia (banken e.d.), waar ik zelf nog de reguliere media aan toe zou willen voegen. Dit daar de reguliere VS mediaorganen in handen zijn van een kleine groep welgestelden, al dan niet in de vorm van grote aandeelhouders. (dat laatste gaat op voor de rest van de reguliere westerse media, ook die in Nederland)

Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de labels, die u hieronder terug kan vinden.

Antrax ‘aanvallen’ na 911, de antrax kwam uit VS overheidsvoorraad, verspreid door……….

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Na de gekunstelde aanvallen van 911 (2001), waarover intussen meer dan duidelijk is, dat deze geregisseerd werden door de VS zelf*, vonden een aantal ‘aanvallen’ met antrax brieven plaats.

Al redelijk snel werd duidelijk, dat deze antrax uit de VS voorraden voor (geheime) bacteriologische oorlogvoering kwam. Echter een dader werd vreemd genoeg nooit gevonden, terwijl een flink aantal van die brieven werden verstuurd….. M.a.w. hoogst waarschijnlijk meer dan één dader, die bij die voorraden kon komen, waarbij wonder o wonder, niet één fout werd gemaakt, niet bij ‘het stelen’ van de antrax, en niet bij de verzending, zodat geen dader(s) opgepakt kon(den) worden…….

Nog vreemder: in het Witte Huis, nam men dagen voor de eerste aanval met antrax brieven, al medicatie tegen antrax…….. Dit stinkt niet alleen meer, maar het is een dikke vette rook, die met een grote punt naar één van de geheime diensten wijst, die de VS ‘rijk’ is, waarvan het Pentagon en ook oorlogsmisdadiger George W. Bush op de hoogte moeten zijn geweest……

Brasscheck TV bracht gisteren een video over deze zaak:

* Er zijn intussen meer dan voldoende bewijzen, die o.a. de betrokkenheid bij 911 door de VS zelf verklaren. Dit kan derhalve geen complottheorie genoemd worden, daar er meer dan voldoende bewijzen zijn, bijvoorbeeld, dat de gebouwen van het WTC tijdens 911 niet instortten door de inslag van vliegtuigen. De eerste vraag die men zich moet stellen als men spreekt van een complottheorie is: wie had er het meest baat bij een bepaalde gebeurtenis? In het geval van 911 was dat de VS: carte blanche voor oorlogvoering; grote financiële overheids onrechtmatigheden, verdwenen in een aantal klappen; daarnaast kon door 911 het militair-industrieel complex weer op volle toeren draaien!! Wat betreft complottheorieën en 911, zie: ‘The Tide is Turning: The Official Story Is Now The Conspiracy Theory‘ (waarin ook over de oorsprong van het woord ‘complottheorie’ wordt gesproken en met mogelijkheid tot vertaling, onder dat artikel).

Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor het label ‘antrax’.