Monday, May 31, 2021

British Empire trafficked slaves from East and West Africa to its India and East Indies colonies. Long desperate to be free of British rule which included jailing Gandhi, India's only offer from UK in 1947 was a deadly freedom contingent on giving up land to hostile groups

 .

“In the 1790s the British Government was the largest purchaser of captured Africans."...Britain dispatched about 10,000 voyages to Africa for slaves” over 245 years from 1562 70% of UK government’s total income came from taxes on goods from its colonies between 1750 and 1780."Caribbean islands became the hub of the British Empire. The sugar colonies were Britain’s most valuable colonies.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Gandhi and other nationalist leaders...organized the nonviolent “Quit India” campaign to hasten the British departure. British colonial authorities responded by jailing Gandhi and hundreds of others."

In 1947 the British Empire carved Pakistan out of India and told both they were now free. The resulting religious turmoil in India and Pakistan caused deaths of hundreds of thousands, including Gandhi, who was assassinated. British imperialists had effectively hog-tied India in a way guaranteed to cause maximum misery and genocidal volumes of deaths.…[Map, partition of British India in 1947]

……………………………

East India Company,” also known as English East India Company, was incorporated by royal charter in 1600. “Large-scale transportation of slaves by the company was prevalent from the 1730s....Although some of those enslaved by the company came from Indonesia and West Africa, the majority came from East Africa:”

[A British slave destination, Saint Helena Island near Africa]

Beginning in the early 1620s, the East India Company began using slave labour and transporting enslaved people to its facilities in Southeast Asia and India as well as to the island of St. Helena in the Atlantic Ocean, west of Angola. Although some of those enslaved by the company came from Indonesia and West Africa, the majority came from East Africa—from Mozambique or especially from Madagascar—and were primarily transported to the company’s holdings in India and Indonesia. Large-scale transportation of slaves by the company was prevalent from the 1730s to the early 1750s and ended in the 1770s….

Beginning in the early 19th century, the company financed the tea trade with illegal opium exports to China. Chinese opposition to that trade precipitated the first Opium War (1839–42), which resulted in a Chinese defeat and the expansion of British trading privileges; a second conflict, often called the Arrow War (1856–60), brought increased trading rights for Europeans….

East India Company, also called English East India Company, formally (1600–1708) Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies or (1708–1873) United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, English company formed for the exploitation of trade with East and Southeast Asia and India, incorporated by royal charter on December 31, 1600. Starting as a monopolistic trading body, the company became involved in politics and acted as an agent of British imperialism in India from the early 18th century to the mid-19th century. In addition, the activities of the company in China in the 19th century served as a catalyst for the expansion of British influence there….

From 1834 it was merely a managing agency for the British government of India….[In 1873 the British government assumed direct rule of India so East India Company dissolved as a legal entity].

Indian Mutiny

Indian Mutiny, also called Sepoy Mutiny or First War of Independence, widespread but unsuccessful rebellion against British rule in India in 1857–59. Begun in Meerut by Indian troops (sepoys) in the service of the British East India Company, it spread to DelhiAgraKanpur, and Lucknow. In India it is often called the First War of Independence and other similar names.

Background

To regard the rebellion merely as a sepoy mutiny is to underestimate the root causes leading to it. British paramountcy-i.e., the belief in British dominance in Indian political, economic, and cultural life-had been introduced in India about 1820. The British increasingly used a variety of tactics to usurp control of the Hindu princely states that were under what were called subsidiary alliances with the British. Everywhere the old Indian aristocracy was being replaced by British officials….

Hindu society was being affected by the introduction of Western ideas. Missionaries were challenging the religious beliefs of the Hindus….

Converts to Christianity were to share with their Hindu relatives in the property of the family estate. There was a widespread belief that the British aimed at breaking down the caste system. The introduction of Western methods of education was a direct challenge to orthodoxy, both Hindu and Muslim….

Aftermath [of the Indian rebellion]

The immediate result of the [1857-58] mutiny was a general housecleaning of the Indian administration. The East India Company was abolished in favour of the direct rule of India by the British government. In concrete terms, this did not mean much, but it introduced a more personal note into the government and removed the unimaginative commercialism that had lingered in the Court of Directors….

Another significant result of the mutiny was the beginning of the policy of consultation with Indians. The Legislative Council of 1853 had contained only Europeans and had arrogantly behaved as if it were a full-fledged parliament. It was widely felt that a lack of communication with Indian opinion had helped to precipitate the crisis. Accordingly, the new council of 1861 was given an Indian-nominated element….

Finally, there was the effect of the mutiny on the people of India themselves. Traditional society had made its protest against the incoming alien influences, and it had failed. The princes and other natural leaders had either held aloof from the mutiny or had proved, for the most part, incompetent. From this time all serious hope of a revival of the past or an exclusion of the West diminished….

Saint Helena Island [As of 2021, “The legislature of St. Helena consists of the British monarch…The territory’s residents are British subjects.”]

[Saint Helena Island]

“The Dutch may have occupied St. Helena about 1645–51, but in 1659 the English East India Company took possession of the island. After a brief Dutch occupation in 1673, the East India Company was confirmed in its ownership. By 1673 nearly half of the inhabitants were imported slaves, but between 1826 and 1836 all slaves were freed. The remoteness of St. Helena made it attractive to the powers of Europe as a place of exile for Napoleon I, and he was confined at Longwood House on the island from October 1815 until his death in May 1821. During that period the island was placed under the jurisdiction of the British crown. Subsequently the East India Company resumed control until 1834, when the authority of the crown was restored. St. Helena remained reasonably prosperous as a busy port of call until about 1870; thereafter steam started replacing sail in seafaring, and the Suez Canal opened (1869), changing the pattern of sea routes….

St. Helena was given some measure of self-rule through an Order in Council and Royal Instructions in 1966 (effective January 1967) that provided for local executive and legislative councils; this order was replaced by a new constitution that became effective in January 1989. The territory’s relationship with Great Britain continued to evolve, and in July 2009 both parties approved a new constitution that came into effect on September 1. It included a bill of rights and limited some of the powers of the governor while giving more authority to members of the elected councils.”…

The Indian Independence Movement,” 1857-1947

“British rule in India began in 1757 when, following the British victory at the Battle of Plassey, the English East India Company began exercising control over the country. The East India Company ruled India for 100 years, until it was replaced by direct British rule (often referred to as the British raj) in the wake of the Indian Mutiny in 1857–58. The Indian independence movement began during World War I and was led by Mohandas K. Gandhi, who advocated for a peaceful and nonviolent end to British rule.”…

“He [Ghandi] got the natives to embrace their Indian culture, a thing that nobody had accomplished before him. Gandhi told the Indians that despite their differences, they all shared one very important thing: a common hatred of the British. He formed a collective identity in India that had never been present in the country before….He was one of the most important factors that accounted for the eventual triumph of the Indians over the British.”

India and Pakistan win independence,” History.com

[Map, partition of British India in 1947]

The British would only grant independence to India if it agreed to give up some of its land to a new country, Pakistan.On August 15, 1947, the Indian Independence Bill took effect, inaugurating a period of religious turmoil in India and Pakistan that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, including Gandhi, who was assassinated by a Hindu fanatic in January 1948 during a prayer vigil to an area of Muslim-Hindu violence….Hundreds of people were killed in the first few days after independence...in the northern province of Punjab, which was sharply divided between Hindu-dominated India and Muslim-dominated Pakistan….

After World War I Gandhi organized the first of his many effective passive-resistance campaigns in protest of Britain’s oppressive rule in India. In the 1930s, the British government made some concessions to the Indian nationalists, but during World War II discontent with British rule had grown to such a degree that Britain feared losing India to the Axis.

Gandhi and other nationalist leaders rejected as empty the British promises of Indian self-government after the war and organized the nonviolent “Quit India” campaign to hasten the British departure. British colonial authorities

responded by jailing Gandhi and hundreds of others….

In 1947 the Indian National Congress reluctantly accepted the creation of Pakistan to appease the Muslim League and conclude the independence negotiations.”…

………………………

.............

 

If Netanyahu is finally gone, actual progress on Middle East peace can proceed after being blocked for four years by Trump and Jared Kushner idiocy-Tom Luongo

 .

“All that ‘peace’ work by Trump will be undone quickly. Because none of it was actually peaceful in its implementation. Netanyahu is gone [election deadline is Wed. 6/2/21], Israel just got defeated by Hamas and now the rest of the story can unfold, put on hold by four years of Jared Kushner’s idiocy and U.S. neoconservatives feeding Trump bad information about the situation.”

5/29/21, From the Notebook: A Critical Shift in the War for Oil,” Tom Luongo

Davos really do think they are too clever by half. Despite prognostications to the contrary, negotiations with Iran over a new JCPOA are nearing completion which Biden/Obama will sign off on after putting up a bit more token resistance to lifting sanctions.

Why do I say this?…Biden backed down on Nordstream 2 and, at The Davos Crowd’s insistence, he will back down on the JCPOA.


[Image, Prince Charles gushes about Great Reset to Davos cronies]

Davos needs cheap energy into Europe. That’s ultimately what the JCPOA was all about. The basic framework for the deal is still there. While the U.S. will kick and scream a bit about sanctions relief, Iran will be back into the oil market and make it possible for Europe to once again invest in oil/gas projects in Iran.

Now that Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer going to be leading Israel, the probability of breakthrough is much much higher than last week. [Election deadline is Wed. 6/2/21]. The Likudniks in Congress and the Senate just lost their raison d’etre. The loss of face for Israel in Bibi’s latest attempt to bludgeon Gaza to retain power backfired completely….

So, with some deal over Iran’s nuclear capability in the near future, Europe will then get gas pipelines from Iran through Turkey as well as gain better access to the North South Transport Corridor which is now unofficially part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Russia, now that Nordstream 2 is nearly done, will not balk at this. In fact, they’ll welcome it. It forms the basis for a broader, sustainable peace arrangement in the Middle East….

But the big geopolitical win for Davos, they think, is that by returning Iran to the oil markets it will cut down on Russia’s dominance there. That the only reason Russia is the price setter in oil today,…because of Trump taking Iranian and Venezuelan oil off the market….

Davos will cut the deal it needs to bring the oil and gas into Europe while still blaming the U.S. for Iran’s nuclear ambitions because they’ve gotten what they actually wanted, Netanyahu out of power.

Trump’s assault on Iran did what Neocon belligerence always does, increase domestic sympathies for hardliners within the existing government. I told you his

assassinating Gen. Qassem Soleimani was not only a mistake but

a turning point in history,

it sealed the alliance between Russia/China/Iran into a cohesive one which no amount of Euro-schmoozing will undo.

Seeing the tenor of these negotiations and the return of Obama to the White House, the Saudis saw the writing on the wall immediately and began peace talks with Iran in Baghdad put off for a year because of Trump’s killing Soleimani.

The Saudis are fighting for their lives now as the Shia Crescent forms and China holds the House of Saud’s future in its hands.

Syria will be restored to the Arab League and all that ‘peace’ work by Trump will be undone quickly. Because none of it was actually peaceful in its implementation. Netanyahu is gone, Israel just got defeated by Hamas and now the rest of the story can unfold,

put on hold

by four years of Jared Kushner’s idiocy and

U.S. neoconservatives feeding Trump bad information about the situation.

The Saker put together two lists in his latest article (linked above) which puts the entire situation into perspective:

The Outcomes:

1. The Syrian state has survived, and its armed and security forces are now far more capable than they were before the war started (remember how they almost lost the war initially? The Syrians bounced back while learning some very hard lessons….Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their country, including every single city in Syria).
2. Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the country now, which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
3. Lebanon is rock solid; even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is backfiring. (2021 update: in spite of the explosion in Beirut, Hezbollah is still in charge)
4. Syria will remain unitary, and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced refugees are returning home.
Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no credibility left….

The Goals [that have failed]:

1. Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces, and security services.
2. Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a “security zone” by Israel not only in the Golan but further north.
3. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah.
4. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a “security zone, but this time in Lebanon.
5. Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
6. Break up Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
7. Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
8. Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and force the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project.
9. Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert, and eventually attack Iran with a broad regional coalition of forces.
10. Eliminate all centers of Shia power in the Middle-East….

Trump’s hard line against Iran was always a mistake, even if Iran’s nuclear ambitions are real. But with the Open Skies treaty now a dead letter the U.S. has real logistical problems in the region and they only multiply if Erdogan in Turkey finally chooses a side and gives up his Neo-Ottoman ambitions, now very likely.

But when it comes to economics, as always, Davos has this all backwards vis a vis oil. They still think they can use the JCPOA to drive a wedge between Iran and Russia over oil. They still think Putin only cares about oil and gas sales abroad. It’s clear they don’t listen to him because the policy never seems to change.

So, to Davos, if they bring 2.5 to 3 million barrels per day from Iran back online and oil prices drop, this forces Russia to back down militarily and diplomatically in Eastern Europe. With a free-floated ruble the Russians don’t care now that they are mostly self-sufficient in food and raw material production.

None of that will come to pass. Putin is shifting the Russian economy away from oil and gas with an announced ambitious domestic spending plan ahead of this fall’s State Duma elections. Lower or even stable prices will accelerate those plans as capital no longer finds its best return in that sector.

This carrot to Iran and stick to Russia approach of Brussels/Davos is childish and it will only get worse when the [very pro-war] Greens come to power in Germany at the end of the year. Unless the German elections end in a stalemate which is unforeseen, the CDU will [join a] grand coalition as the junior partner to the Greens, just as Davos wants it.

Don’t miss the significance of the policy bifurcation either when it comes to oil. The Biden administration is trying to make energy as expensive as possible in the U.S.-no Keystone Pipeline, Whitmer trying to close down Enbridges’s Line 5 from Canada into Michigan, etc.–while Europe gets Nordstream 2 from Russia and new, cheap supplies from Iran.

This is what had Trump so hopping mad when he was President….Israel and the EastMed pipeline was what should have been the U.S. policy in his mind.

Now, those dreams are dead and the sell out of the U.S. to Davos is in full swing.  Seriously, Biden/Obama are going to continue on this path of undermining U.S. energy production....

Bottom line, for now global oil prices have likely peaked no matter what drivel comes out of John Kerry’s mouth….

We’ll see rising oil prices in the U.S. while global supply rises, some of which China is getting at a steep discount from who? Iran.

Meanwhile Russia continues to hold the EU to account on everything while unmasking the not just the latest Bellingcat/MI6/State Dept. nonsense in Belarus surrounding the arrest of Roman Petrosovich, but also filling the void diplomatically left by a confused and incompetent U.S. policy in the Middle East.

If I’m the Bennett in Israel, the first phone call I make after taking office is to no one other than Putin, who now holds the reins over Iran, Hezbollah and a very battle-hardened and angry Syria who just re-elected Assad because he navigated the [decade long] assault on the country with no lack of geopolitical skill.

Because it is clear that Biden/Obama, on behalf of Davos, have left Israel out to twist in the wind surrounded by those who wish it gone. We’ll see if they get their wish. I think the win here is clear and the days of U.S. adventurism in the Middle East are numbered.

The oil wars aren’t over, by any stretch of the imagination, but the outcome of the main battles have decisively shifted who determines what battles are fought next.”

 

 .............

 

Saturday, May 29, 2021

Smallpox escaped from UK labs three times, 1966-1978. In 2007, high security UK Pirbright lab leaked Foot and Mouth disease due to biosecurity breaches such as lax monitoring of workers and vehicles, and incomplete record keeping

 .

Three separate smallpox escapes [1966, 1972, and 1978] occurred at two different accredited UK smallpox laboratories causing at least 80 cases and 3 deaths. In 2007, Foot and Mouth disease escaped from high security UK lab at Pirbright at a cost to the UK economy of 200 million pounds [$284 million US]. 3/31/2014, Threatened pandemics and laboratory escapes: Self-fulfilling prophecies," Martin Furmanski, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

“Smallpox releases in Great Britain

Eradication of natural smallpox transmission made the prospect of reintroduction of the virus intolerable. This risk was clearly demonstrated in the United Kingdom, where from 1963-1978 only four cases of smallpox (with no deaths) occurred that were imported by travelers from areas where smallpox was endemic, while during this same period [1963-1978] at least 80 cases and three deaths resulted from three separate escapes from two different accredited smallpox laboratories.

The first recognized laboratory escape, in March 1972, occurred with the infection of a laboratory assistant at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. She had observed the harvesting of live smallpox virus from eggs used as a growing medium; the process was performed on an uncontained lab table, as was then routine. Hospitalized, but before she was placed in isolation, she infected two visitors to a patient in an adjacent bed, both of whom died. They in turn infected a nurse, who survived, as did the laboratory assistant.

In August of 1978, a medical photographer at Birmingham Medical School developed smallpox and died. She infected her mother, who survived. Her workplace was immediately above the smallpox laboratory at Birmingham Medical School. Faulty ventilation and shortcomings in technique were ultimately implicated.

Investigators then re-examined a 1966 smallpox outbreak, which was strikingly similar. The initial 1966 infection was also a medical photographer who worked at the same Birmingham Medical School facility. The earlier outbreak was caused by a low-virulence strain of smallpox (variola minor), and it caused at least 72 subsequent cases. There were no deaths. Laboratory logs revealed variola minor [low virulence strain] had been manipulated in the smallpox laboratory at a time appropriate to cause the infection in the photographer working a floor above.”…

2007, Foot and Mouth disease escaped from high security UK lab at Pirbright:

[“At FMD laboratories near Pirbright...a commercial vaccine producer and a government-funded research institute share a facility.”]

[Image: “The 2007 UK FMD outbreak, field investigation perspective“]

“In 2007, FMD appeared again in Britain, four kilometers [2.5. miles] from a biosafety level 4 laboratory—a designation indicating the highest level of lab security—located at Pirbright. The strain had caused a 1967 outbreak in the United Kingdom but was not then circulating in animals anywhere. It was, however, used in vaccine manufacture at the Pirbright facility. Investigations concluded that construction vehicles had carried mud contaminated with FMD from a defective wastewater line at Pirbright to the first farm. That outbreak identified 278 infected animals and required 1,578 animals to be culled. It disrupted UK agricultural production and exports and cost an estimated 200 million pounds [$284 million US].”…

[Added; Sep 7, 2007 (CIDRAP News) – “Britain’s recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) were likely caused by faulty wastewater drains at a laboratory facility, which contaminated soil that was then spread by trucks to a nearby cattle farm, British authorities announced today….DEFRA officials had previously linked the outbreaks to a leak from FMD laboratories near Pirbright where a commercial vaccine producer and a government-funded research institute share a facility....Though officials said faulty drain pipes were probably to blame for the FMD virus leak, investigators also found other problems at the Pirbright facilities, including several biosecurity breaches, such as inadequately monitored worker and vehicle movement and incomplete recordkeeping.Construction trucks at the Pirbright site…were not washed or disinfected before leaving the area.”]

These narratives of escaped pathogens have common themes. There are unrecognized technical flaws in standard biocontainment, as demonstrated in the UK smallpox and FMD cases....Poor training of personnel and slack oversight of laboratory procedures negate policy efforts by national and international bodies to achieve biosecurity."…

……………………….

Full article:

3/31/2014, Threatened pandemics and laboratory escapes: Self-fulfilling prophecies,” Martin Furmanski, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

“The public health danger from the escape, from laboratories, of viruses capable of causing pandemics has become the subject of considerable, well-merited discussion, spurred by “gain of function” experiments. The ostensible goal of these experiments— in which researchers manipulate already-dangerous pathogens to create or increase communicability among humans—is to develop tools to monitor the natural emergence of pandemic strains. Opponents, however, warn that the risk of laboratory escape of these high-consequence pathogens far outweighs any potential advance. These arguments appear in a variety of recent research papers, including Rethinking Biosafety in Research on Potential Pandemic Pathogens; The Human Fatality and Economic Burden of a Man-made Influenza Pandemic: A Risk Assessment; Containing the Accidental Laboratory Escape of Potential Pandemic Influenza Viruses; and Response to Letter by the European Society for Virology on “Gain-of-Function” Influenza  Research

The risk of a manmade pandemic sparked by a laboratory escape is not hypothetical: One occurred in 1977, and it occurred because of concern that a natural pandemic was imminent. Many other laboratory escapes of high-consequence pathogens have occurred, resulting in transmission beyond laboratory personnel. Ironically, these laboratories were working with pathogens to prevent the very outbreaks they ultimately caused. For that reason, the tragic consequences have been called “self-fulfilling prophecies.”

Modern genetic analysis allows pathogens to be precisely identified, and because all circulating pathogens show genetic changes over time, the year that a particular example of a pathogen emerged can generally be determined, given a sufficient database of samples. If a pathogen appears in nature after not circulating for years or decades, it may be assumed to have escaped from a laboratory where it had been stored inert for many years, accumulating no genetic changes; that is, its natural evolution had been frozen.

The swine flu scare of 1976 and the H1N1 human influenza pandemic of 1977. 

Human H1N1 influenza virus appeared with the 1918 global pandemic, and persisted, slowly accumulating small genetic changes, until 1957, when it appeared to go extinct after the H2N2 pandemic virus appeared.

In 1976, H1N1 swine influenza virus struck Fort Dix [New Jersey, US], causing 13 hospitalizations and one death. The specter of a reprise of the deadly 1918 pandemic triggered an unprecedented effort to immunize all Americans. No swine H1N1 pandemic materialized, however, and complications of immunization truncated the program after 48 million immunizations, which eventually caused 25 deaths.

Human H1N1 virus reappeared in 1977, in the Soviet Union and [first observed in] China. Virologists, using serologic and early genetic tests soon began to suggest the cause of the reappearance was a laboratory escape of a 1949-1950 virus, and as genomic techniques advanced, it became clear that this was true. By 2010, researchers published it as fact: “The most famous case of a released laboratory strain is the re-emergent H1N1 influenza-A virus which was first observed in China in May of 1977 and in Russia shortly thereafter.” The virus may have escaped from a lab attempting to prepare an attenuated H1N1 vaccine in response to the [1976] US swine flu pandemic alert.

The 1977 pandemic spread rapidly worldwide but was limited to those under 20 years of age: Older persons were immune from exposures before 1957.

Its attack rate was high (20 to 70 percent) in schools and military camps, but mercifully it caused mild disease, and fatalities were few. It continued to circulate until 2009, when the pH1N1 virus replaced it.

There has been virtually no public awareness of the 1977 H1N1 pandemic and its laboratory origins, despite the clear analogy to current [2014] concern about a potential H5N1 or H7N9 avian influenza pandemic and “gain of function” experiments. The consequences of escape of a highly lethal avian virus with enhanced transmissibility would almost certainly be much graver than the 1977 escape of a “seasonal,” possibly attenuated strain to a population with substantial existing immunity.

Smallpox releases in Great Britain.

Eradication of natural smallpox transmission made the prospect of reintroduction of the virus intolerable. This risk was clearly demonstrated in the United Kingdom, where from 1963-1978 only four cases of smallpox (with no deaths) occurred that were imported by travelers from areas where smallpox was endemic, while during this same period at least 80 cases and three deaths resulted from three separate escapes from two different accredited smallpox laboratories.

The first recognized laboratory escape, in March 1972, occurred with the infection of a laboratory assistant at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. She had observed the harvesting of live smallpox virus from eggs used as a growing medium; the process was performed on an uncontained lab table, as was then routine. Hospitalized, but before she was placed in isolation, she infected two visitors to a patient in an adjacent bed, both of whom died.  They in turn infected a nurse, who survived, as did the laboratory assistant.

In August of 1978, a medical photographer at Birmingham Medical School developed smallpox and died. She infected her mother, who survived. Her workplace was immediately above the smallpox laboratory at Birmingham Medical School. Faulty ventilation and shortcomings in technique were ultimately implicated.

Investigators then re-examined a 1966 smallpox outbreak, which was strikingly similar. The initial 1966 infection was also a medical photographer who worked at the same Birmingham Medical School facility. The earlier outbreak was caused by a low-virulence strain of smallpox (variola minor), and it caused at least 72 subsequent cases. There were no deaths. Laboratory logs revealed variola minor had been manipulated in the smallpox laboratory at a time appropriate to cause the infection in the photographer working a floor above.

Venezuelan equine encephalitis in 1995. 

Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) is a viral disease transmitted by mosquitoes. It intermittently erupts in regional or continental-scale outbreaks that involve equines (horses, donkeys, and mules) in the Western Hemisphere. There are often concurrent zoonotic epidemics among humans. VEE in humans causes a severe febrile illness; it can occasionally be fatal or may leave permanent neurological disability (epilepsy, paralysis, or mental retardation) in 4 to 14 percent of clinical cases, particularly those involving children.

There were significant outbreaks of VEE every few years from the 1930s to the 1970s. Modern analysis revealed most outbreaks were genetic matches to the original 1938 VEE isolation used in inactivated veterinary vaccines. It was clear that many batches of the veterinary VEE vaccines had not been completely inactivated, so residual infective virus remained.

From 1938 to 1972, the VEE vaccine caused most of the very outbreaks that it was called upon to prevent, a clear self-fulfilling prophecy.

In 1995 a major VEE animal and human outbreak struck Venezuela and Colombia. There were at least 10,000 human VEE cases with 11 deaths in Venezuela and an estimated 75,000 human cases in Colombia, with 3,000 neurological complications and 300 deaths. VEE virus was isolated from 10 stillborn or miscarried human fetuses.

Genomic analysis identified the 1995 virus as identical to a 1963 isolate, with no indication it had been circulating for 28 years. It was another case of frozen evolution, but unlike the vaccine-related VEE outbreaks, the 1963 virus had never been used in a vaccine. Suspicion fell on an inadvertent release from a virology lab, either by an unrecognized infection of a lab worker or visitor, or escape of an infected laboratory animal or mosquito. The major scientific group working on VEE published a paper in 2001 stating the 1995 outbreak most likely was a laboratory escape, with considerable circumstantial evidence: The outbreak strain was isolated from an incompletely inactivated antigen preparation used on the open bench in the VEE laboratory located at the outbreak epicenter. But clear proof was lacking, and the group subsequently said it was reconsidering this conclusion.

SARS outbreaks after the SARS epidemic. The 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome outbreak spread to 29 countries, causing more than 8,000 infections and at least 774 deaths. Because 21 percent of cases involved hospital workers, it had the potential to shut down health care services wherever it struck. It is particularly dangerous to handle in the laboratory because there is no vaccine, and it can be transmitted via aerosols.

Moreover, about five percent of SARS patients are “super-spreaders” who infect eight or more secondary cases. For instance, one patient spread SARS directly to 33 others (reflecting an infection rate of 45 percent) during a hospitalization, ultimately leading to the infection of 77 people, including three secondary super-spreaders. A super-spreader could turn even a single laboratory infection into a potential pandemic.

SARS has not re-emerged naturally, but there have been six escapes from virology labs: one each in Singapore and Taiwan, and four separate escapes at the same laboratory in Beijing.

The first was in Singapore in August 2003, in a virology graduate student at the National University of Singapore. He had not worked directly with SARS, but it was present in the laboratory where he worked. He recovered and produced no secondary cases. The World Health Organization formed an expert committee to revise SARS biosafety guidelines.

The second escape was in Taiwan in December 2003, when a SARS research scientist fell ill on a return flight after attending a medical meeting in Singapore. His 74 contacts in Singapore were quarantined, but again, fortunately, none developed SARS. Investigation revealed the scientist had handled leaking biohazard waste without gloves, a mask, or a gown. Ironically, the WHO expert committee called for augmented biosafety in SARS laboratories the day after this case was reported.

In April 2004, China reported a case of SARS in a nurse who had cared for a researcher at the Chinese National Institute of Virology (NIV). While ill, the researcher had traveled twice by train from Beijing to Anhui province, where she was nursed by her mother, a physician, who fell ill and died. The nurse in turn infected five third-generation cases, causing no deaths.

Subsequent investigation uncovered three unrelated laboratory infections in different researchers at the NIV. At least of two primary patients had never worked with live SARS virus. Many shortcomings in biosecurity were found at the NIV, and the specific cause of the outbreak was traced to an inadequately inactivated preparation of SARS virus that was used in general (that is, not biosecure) laboratory areas, including one where the primary cases worked. It had not been tested to confirm its safety after inactivation, as it should have been.

Foot and mouth disease in the UK in 2007. Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) infects cloven-hoofed animals such as pigs, sheep, and cattle. It has been eradicated in North America and most of Europe. It is highly transmissible, capable of spreading through direct contact on the boots of farm workers and by natural aerosol that can spread up to 250 kilometers. Outbreaks in FMD-free areas cause economic disaster because meat exports cease and animals are massively culled. A 2001 UK outbreak resulted in 10 million animals killed and $16 billion in economic losses.

In 2007, FMD appeared again in Britain, four kilometers from a biosafety level 4 laboratorya designation indicating the highest level of lab security—located at Pirbright. The strain had caused a 1967 outbreak in the United Kingdom but was not then circulating in animals anywhere. It was, however, used in vaccine manufacture at the Pirbright facility. Investigations concluded that construction vehicles had carried mud contaminated with FMD from a defective wastewater line at Pirbright to the first farm. That outbreak identified 278 infected animals and required 1,578 animals to be culled. It disrupted UK agricultural production and exports and cost an estimated 200 million pounds [$284 million US].

Federal law bans FMD virus from the continental United States, and it is held only at the US Department of Agriculture Plum Island facility off Long Island. Currently, however, its replacement, the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, is under construction in Manhattan, Kansas, under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security. Moving FMD research to the agricultural heartland of the United States was opposed by many groups, including the Government Accountability Office, but Homeland Security decided on the Kansas location. In upgrading facilities to counter the threat of agro-bioterrorism, the department is increasing the risk to US agriculture of unintentional release.

Dangerous themes. These narratives of escaped pathogens have common themes. There are unrecognized technical flaws in standard biocontainment, as demonstrated in the UK smallpox and FMD cases. Inadequately inactivated preparations of dangerous pathogens are handled in laboratory areas with reduced biosecurity levels, as demonstrated in the SARS and VEE escapes. The first infection, or index case, happens in a person not working directly with the pathogen that infects him or her, as in the smallpox and SARS escapes. Poor training of personnel and slack oversight of laboratory procedures negate policy efforts by national and international bodies to achieve biosecurity, as shown in the SARS and smallpox escapes.

It is hardly reassuring that, despite stepwise technical improvements in containment facilities and increased policy demands for rigorous biosecurity procedures in the handling of dangerous pathogens, potentially high consequence breaches of biocontainment occur nearly daily: In 2010, 244 unintended releases of bioweapon candidate “select agents” were reported.

Looking at the problem pragmatically, the question is not if such escapes will result in a major civilian outbreak, but rather what the pathogen will be and how such an escape may be contained, if indeed it can be contained at all.

Experiments that augment virulence and transmissibility of dangerous pathogens have been funded and performed, notably with the H5N1 avian influenza virus. The advisability of performing such experiments at allparticularly in laboratories placed at universities in heavily populated urban areas, where potentially exposed laboratory personnel are in daily contact with a multitude of susceptible and unaware citizens—is clearly in question.

If such manipulations should be allowed at all, it would seem prudent to conduct them in isolated laboratories where personnel are sequestered from the general public and must undergo a period of exit quarantine before re-entering civilian life. The historical record tells us it is not a matter of if but when ignoring such measures will cost health and even lives. Perhaps many lives.”

…………………………………

“Editor’s note: This essay summarizes a more detailed review of the historical record with appropriate scientific references….The author thanks Lynn Klotz and Ed Sylvester for help with condensing the longer report for this article.” [“11 August 2014, doi: 10.3389/fpubh. 2014.00116, The consequences of a lab escape of a potential pandemic pathogen,Lynn C. Klotz1* and Edward J. Sylvester21, The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Washington, DC, USA2, Science and Medical Journalism, Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA* Correspondence: lynnklotz@live.comEdited by:Kathleen Vogel, Cornell University, USA, Reviewed by: Kathleen Vogel, Cornell University, USA, Simon Wain-Hobson, Institut Pasteur, France.”

……………………………….

Added: Excerpt from The consequences of a lab escape of a potential pandemic pathogen,August 2014

A 2013 Centers for Disease Control report is a significant source of recent data on LAIs [Lab-acquired infection] (11). The report documents four undetected or unreported LAIs in registered US Select Agent, high-containment BSL-3 labs between 2004 and 2010. An undetected or unreported LAI implies an escape when the infected person leaves the lab….

[page 2:] The risk of a man-made pandemic from a lab escape is not hypothetical. Lab escapes of high-consequence pathogens resulting in transmission beyond lab personnel have occurred (20,21). The historical record reveals lab-originated outbreaks and deaths due to the causative agents of the 1977 pandemic flu,

smallpox escapes in Great Britain,

Venezuelan equine encephalitis in1995,

SARS outbreaks after the SARS epidemic, and

foot and mouth disease in the UK in 2007.

Ironically, these labs were working with pathogens to prevent the very outbreaks that they ultimately caused.”…


...........................