Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (50707)	10/10/2002 8:32:29 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

'Bio-Armageddon' is a possibility if U.S. hits Hussein. A Virus-Fed Doomsday By SCOTT P. LAYNE and MICHAEL H. SOMMER COMMENTARY The Los Angeles Times October 10, 2002 The debate among the nation's politicians and the advice they're receiving from intelligence experts should not focus exclusively on diplomacy versus preemptive military action against Saddam Hussein. Instead, there is one nightmarish outcome--the so-called bio-Armageddon scenario--that is of immediate concern. It goes like this: We go in to take out Hussein, and his obedient henchmen pull a "doomsday" switch, releasing contagious biological agents for which there is no vaccine and no cure. Not only are hundreds of thousands of American troops wiped out but, if Hussein wishes to die a martyr's death, the virulent agents are released to spread around the world and wipe out half of mankind. Even mentioning this subject may seem like scaremongering, but it's not. In today's dicey world, this horrific possibility is a biological, military and political fact of life--or death--that cannot be dismissed out of hand. How seriously has the bio-Armageddon scenario been weighed in councils of war? An Oct. 7 letter from CIA Director George Tenet to Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, stated that a cornered Hussein might use "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." It costs about $1 million to kill one person with a nuclear weapon, about $1,000 to kill one person with a chemical weapon and about $1 to kill one person with a biological weapon. Low cost alone may dictate that current and future terrorists will opt for the $1 biological killers. Last year, a bombshell of a scientific paper, published in the Journal of Virology, revealed that a bioengineered form of mousepox--a close cousin of smallpox--was vaccine-resistant and 100% lethal. It showed that simply inserting one immune-inhibiting gene into mousepox was all it took. Is it conceivable that Hussein's well-trained scientists, who crave to please their boss at any cost, have not read this paper and applied its findings to smallpox? This year, another stunning paper in the research journal Science described the complete synthesis of the poliovirus genome in the test tube. This feat of bioengineering pointed out that deadly viruses, such as smallpox, can be resurrected in the test tube. No seed germs are required, as previously thought, just genetic sequences, training in molecular biology at the master's-in-science level and a few years of laboratory work. It's hard to underestimate or sugarcoat these scientific papers. They offer a blueprint for creating vaccine-resistant and highly lethal viruses that could, for example, render the current smallpox vaccine stockpile and the U.S. government's emergency vaccination program absolutely useless. This biological genie may pose a far greater threat than 1,000 atomic bombs. It's no longer hypothetical to bioengineer such an agent. And less than $1 million would be required to create deadly and contagious agents. In the wrong hands, a bioengineered virus could be bottled and used as an insurance policy against invasion and overthrow. And, if unleashed, it could change the very fabric of remaining modern civilization. At a minimum, too many people might be stricken to continue to operate oil refineries, power plants, airlines and communications. A completely new appraisal and posture are needed to deal with these threats. First, the U.S. needs to train and place more intelligence agents knowledgeable in this type of warfare throughout the world, because the work taking place in a secret offensive biological weapons program cannot be monitored from airplanes or satellites. It must be spied on firsthand. Building our biological human intelligence capabilities will take years. It will require the scientific, law enforcement and national security communities to finally work together, which they have shown little inclination to do. Second, we need to build a high-speed/high-volume infectious disease laboratory and information processing system that links the molecular fingerprints of biological agents to their sources worldwide. Such a system would provide comprehensive and rapid analyses of biological agents and, when every moment counts, it could help to save countless lives after an attack--both at home and abroad. If we had such a laboratory and biological sample collection program working, we could test for the combined signatures of pox viruses and virus-altering proteins. If, for example, the two were found to reside in the wrong hands or places, we could take preemptive actions. Here's the bottom line: Bio-Armageddon and biological blackmail cannot continue to remain as realistic options for terrorists. _______________________________________________ Scott P. Layne is an associate professor of epidemiology at the UCLA School of Public Health. Michael H. Sommer is a visiting scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley. latimes.com

To: Bilow who wrote (50707)	10/10/2002 8:46:10 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Bill Gates Battles Deadlier Bugs BusinessWeek Online Wednesday October 9, 4:25 pm ET Daily Briefing: NEWSMAKER Q&A In addition to guiding Microsoft's new product strategy, one of Bill Gates's chief preoccupations for the past few years has been the fight against infectious diseases in the developing world. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation contributed $750 million of the Vaccine Fund's $1 billion war chest, which pays for vaccines against such diseases as hepatitis, measles, and polio for 53 of the world's poorest nations. The foundation is also a major backer of the Global Alliances for Vaccines & Immunization [GAVI], which many poverty experts regard as a promising new model for managing foreign aid and coordinating the activities of governments and donor agencies. GAVI was formed in response to stagnating global immunization rates and widening disparities in vaccine access among industrialized and developing countries, a problem that results in millions of people dying each year from easily prevented infectious diseases. In an interview with BusinessWeek Senior News Editor Pete Engardio conducted via e-mail, Gates offered his views on GAVI and global poverty in general. Edited excerpts follow: Q: Why should American business care about global poverty? A: Business everywhere should care on both a humanitarian and practical level. First, it's simply wrong to let millions suffer and die needlessly when we have the knowledge and tools to reduce disease burden and save lives. Second, the decisions we make today on issues such as global-health inequity will have a direct impact on the society our children live in tomorrow. Notwithstanding the security issues that some have raised, ensuring that young people have access to basic health care is a vital long-term investment that will pay substantial dividends 20 years from now in the form of healthier, more economically independent societies. Q: Do you think there's reason to hope that many of the most serious problems that contribute to extreme poverty can be solved with smart use of foreign aid and committed governments? A: There are certainly several reasons to be hopeful. Increased attention is being given to issues of poverty and especially global health. This, combined with greater awareness about the destabilizing impacts of global-health inequity and a willingness to commit more resources in the form of development assistance make this a unique time to confront some of the greatest challenges associated with poverty. I think as more people realize how much can be done for so little, they will support their governments' decisions to spend more resources on issues like improving global health. Low-cost tools --- such as a measles vaccine [25 cents], a bed net [$4] to prevent a child from contracting malaria, and oral-rehydration therapy [33 cents] to prevent a child's death from diarrhea -- can literally save millions of children. Q: Do you think GAVI and other programs that use incentives, monitoring, and donor coordination represent a new model for foreign aid? A: GAVI represents an innovative approach to immunizing the world's children using existing vaccines and collaboration between public and private sectors. The Vaccine Fund is currently working with the governments of 53 developing countries. And if those countries reach the targets they have set, immunization rates will rise by 17%, saving millions of lives. GAVI is also creating a viable market for vaccines in low-income countries. Markets alone won't address the largest health inequities -- it will take new approaches that includes incentives and better cooperation. biz.yahoo.com