Content uploaded by Alexander Kouzminov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alexander Kouzminov on Feb 20, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
No 3 6 January 2017 Current Concerns Page 10
continued on page 11
zf. We call our
present age the
information age,
IT/information
technologies are
a p e r m a n e n t
topic and a self-
evidence in mod-
ern everyday life
and false infor-
mation - fake
news – are late-
ly a big issue in
the media. The latter are of course not
an invention of the present, rather they
are known elements of power politics and
warfare. Propaganda and lies are noth-
ing new under the sun. With internet and
computers, however, opportunities, extent
and rate of spread have increased mas-
sively. This is also the context of the re-
marks of bio-weapon expert Alexander
Kouzminov (New Zealand) on the subject
of information-bioterrorism.
Q1:You mentioned that a state can be
weakened or hit, just by creating a sce-
nario of being threatened by a dangerous
infective agent, also call imminent pan-
demia? Could you explain this in a few
words?
Since the end of the 1990s the start of
2000, there appeared quite frightening in-
formation about dangerous viruses, dead-
ly infectious diseases and threats of glob-
al pandemics.
Threats of pandemics –
“hot” news stories …
The key words or headlines, which the
media operated in the cases of these pan-
demics of Severe Acute Respiratory Syn-
drome (SARS) (2002-2003), Avian Influ-
enza A (H5N1) (1997, 2006-2007), H1N1
‘Swine flu’ (2009), and some other recent
once, were: ‘swine flu will hit the country
hard’, ‘virus could kill millions of people’,
‘sudden spread of disease’, ‘virus-killer’,
‘global epidemic’, ‘global catastrophe’ ,
‘catastrophic consequences’ and similar.
The ‘hot’ news stories looked like reports
from the war-zones, as if the enemy was
at your door step.
Mass media especially highlighted, that
these and future epidemics of ‘strange’
disease outbreaks would have ‘an enor-
mous health and regional (and even glob-
al) development threat’, present ‘a major
threat to a national interest and security’,
that ‘the risk is still significant’, and that
‘the impact of the next pandemic will be
devastating’.
Such information continued to circu-
late in mass media despite the fact that
there was not one case supported by a
laboratory test, in regards to the spread
of SARS or Avian flu from one person to
another. This was not carried out even in
one country, where such cases could be
confirmed.
… and the consequences
Such ‘information bio-attack’ reached
negative consequences – it created mass
circulated panic, fear in the public, and
lead to substantial inf luence over the
economies of countries and regions of the
world, destabilizing them. It also weak-
ened the economies creating losses (e.g.
loss of trade, tourism, and international
travel), destabilized government and pub-
lic services.
What is information-bioterrorism?
Q2: You called this form of mass manip-
ulation ‘infobioterrorism’. Could you de-
fine this concept? Do you have an actual
example?
I define ‘information bioterrorism’ as a
new type of global operational influence
over people. I define it as influence over
them and manipulation. What’s the pur-
pose? Well, it may have some specific,
pre-planned outcomes. Another name for
it can be ‘information biological black-
m a i l ’.
The basis of ‘information bioterrorism’
is the use of fear over people. This fear
is based on pandemics of very dangerous
diseases, for example when a pandemic is
a threat that arises from a viral outbreak in
animals. The main components and after-
effects of such new form of mass manipu-
lation of a “threat” are:
• Timefactor:practicallyimmediateand
globally-spread panic through electron-
ic means of communication.
• Vulnerabilityfactor:helplessnessbe-
fore the threat, due to lack of effective
means of defence. This creates panic
among the general population.
• Uncertaintyfactor:the lackoffactual
information about the source of threat
and its spread; the side who initiates
the threat thereby has a new opportu-
nity for mass manipulation.
• Thelackofcontrolfactor:eachperson
who finds himself ‘out of control’ be-
cause he/she is a suspicious object, li-
able to have the disease, is a threat to
everyone else.
Organised by secret-services carried
out as “active operation”
Information bioterrorism (or ‘informa-
tion biological blackmail’) is enacted by
the means of methods organised by secret
services; and is implemented as an ‘active
1Information-Bioterrorism –
a new form of global manipulation
An interview with Dr Alexander Kouzminov, New Zealand
Alexander Kouzminov
(picture ma)
Dr Alexander Kouzminov
Dr A lexander Kouzminov is a high-
ly qualified and experienced biosecu-
rity specialist. He has extensive track
record of work in central government
and private sector as a senior advisor,
senior analyst, director, chief-execu-
tive. Dr Kouzminov has contributed to
a number of environmental and bios-
ecurity policy papers within New Zea-
land and internationally e.g. UNESCO
policy forums, among others, and has
several awards from New Zealand cen-
tral government and international rec-
ognitions for his policy development
work.
Dr Kouzminov is also an ex-intelli-
gence operative of the Soviet-Russian
Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) in
1980-90s, and dealt with intelligence
operations with bioweapons related
activities in target countries.
He is author of ‘Biological Espio-
nage. Special Operations of the So-
viet and Russian Foreign Intelligence
Services in the West’ (2005, Green-
hill Books) and has over 50 published
works on biosecurity e.g. bioterrorism,
bioweapons, risk control and manage-
ment, policy approaches.
ISBN 978-185 367 6 46 8
No 3 6 January 2017 Current Concerns Page 11
”Information-Bioterrorism – a new …”
continued from page 10
continued on page 12
operation’ in target countries. Such an ac-
tive operation can be determined via the
following means.
‘Active operation’ - this is an activi-
ty of a secret service (usually of foreign
intelligence), which is aimed at a ‘Tar-
get audience’ (an object it wants to in-
fluence), and is carried out at the request
of an ‘Interested party’ with ‘Supporters’
and ‘Auxiliary means’ to reach required
‘Planned impacts’. ‘Active operation’ is
carried out with the support of agents,
supporting persons and interested organi-
zations.Usually,secretservicesconducts
‘active operations’ using ‘false flags’ – that
is, it hides its main objectives under the
cover of a (politically) neutral organiza-
tion, or hides its goals under some kind of
a falsely crafted problem.
“Interested parties”
and their target audience
During the times of Cold War, ‘interested
parties’ were usually the government or its
special (secret) services, normally foreign
intelligence. Today, the ‘Interested party’
could be: a big conglomerate, pharmaceu-
ticals, bank, private and political groups,
lobbyists, etc.
Objects or target audience of an ‘active
operation’ may be – governments, high
ranking military officials, secret servic-
es of the enemy, political parties, banks,
companies, etc. as well as ordinary pop-
ulations, where the aim is to cause some
kind of an impact and effect.
‘Executor’: This is secret service, as
aruleforeignintelligence.Usually,the
‘Executor’ carries out ‘Active operations’
using ‘false flag’, which means that it
masquerades the true operation by cover-
ing it up with a false story or threat.
‘Supporters’: They might be agents of
influence and neutral third parties [the lat-
ter are not with the secret service]; these
can help the ‘Executor’ to realize the ‘Ac-
tive operations’.
Mass media to implement
“active operations”
‘Auxiliary means’: Mass media is one of
the key ways that an ‘Active operation’ is
implemented. The ‘Executor’ uses mass
media to achieve the maximum impact
on ‘Target audience/Object of influence’.
For example, to raise a threat, to spread
rumors and false information, etc. all of
this is really for disinformation, in order
to take away the attention from the true
operation, to masquerade it.
‘Planned impacts’: Information sent out
for a specific audience has to be ‘sharp’
that is it’s important to influence the in-
tended object. Information is put together
purposefully, usually as a threat or a big
problem, as if it’s a real problem. The tar-
get audience should never doubt it.
Main stages of the ‘active operation’
The approach that is used to carry out the
‘active operation’ is based on a crafted
strategy: first the problem, and then its so-
lution.
The main stages of the ‘active opera-
tion’, through which ‘information bioter-
rorism’ can be created, are as follows:
Phase 1: the ‘Executor’ (e.g. secret ser-
vice), with the help of ‘Supporters’ (e.g.
agents) and ‘Auxiliary Means’ (e.g. mass
media), throws out false information (in
our case, - imminent pandemic) onto the
‘Target Audience’ (e.g. public) with a pre-
tense that it’s real.
Phase 2: ‘Executors’, ‘Supporters’ and
‘Auxiliary Means’ accelerate the prob-
lem, making it a hot topic (maximum in-
terest needs to be created). Once the false
problem is created, it grows like a ‘snow
ball’, rolling and rolling independently as
though it’s becoming legitimate.
Phase 3: the actual task of the operation
is realized (secretly) – monetary gains are
already there, government stability is un-
dermined (e.g. economic loss), and other
unfortunate impacts.
For the general target (general popu-
lation), they are told that the problem is
being solved and risks are contained. This
is done with side-line information (news
stories, etc.). However, the problem is left
‘hanging’, so that the ‘Executor’ can use
it again. It would be easy to resurrect it.
In practice, “information bioterrorism”
can be realized using these means:
I – Creating a problem
First, there needs to be a local outbreak
of seasonal influenza or some contagious
disease, which the interested party can
use for its own interests. This of course
is false information. There can also be a
case, that it’s a supposed ‘leak’ from a se-
cret military-medical laboratory or army
‘bio-defence research’ centre. Such a situ-
ation can be crafted by the ‘Executor’ (se-
cret service) deliberately, to create great
interest, awe and fear.1
II – Snowballing a problem
Media (‘Auxiliary means’, also includ-
ing ‘Supporters’, e.g. agents of influence)
starts to ‘heat’ the public. Front pages of
newspaper,TVchannels,internet,social
media, – are already there with alarming
titles – ‘highly pathogenic virus’, ‘new
contagious disease’, ‘new flu outbreak
into a pandemic’, ‘be ready for corpses, flu
plan says’ – all heightening the threat and
scaring everyone! Mass-media and inter-
ested organisations issue warning signs/
messages like ‘the disease breaks human-
to-human barrier’ and “predict” that “the
disease would infect up to millions people
globally”. For example, “A super-flu could
kill up to 1.9 million Americans, accord-
ing to a draft of the government’s plan to
fight a worldwide epidemic”.2
III – Problem becomes hot topic
Health authorities/senior officials/experts/
agents of influence express concerns that
a virus will mutate into a form that can
spread from one human to another and
this could lead to a world-wide pandemic,
and claimed that an influenza pandemic
would likely lead to high rates of morbid-
ity (sickness) and mortality (death). For
example, “…the death toll from a human
pandemic of avian influenza could be
anything from 5 to 150 million”.3 Also,
“There is no time to waste. The virus [bird
flu] could ignite the next human flu pan-
demic. I do not need to tell you of the ter-
rible consequences that could bring to all
nations and all peoples”.4
IV – Aggravating a problem
and starting to gain planned results
Soon after World Health Organisation
(WHO) may announce a new influenza,
a public health emergency of internation-
al concern, and soon an influenza pan-
demic alert is raised to five on a six-level
warning scale meaning that a pandemic
is considered imminent. The governments
around the world have little choice, but to
respond to the WHO’s pandemic decla-
ration by spending billions on drugs, and
throw all available resources at fighting
the disease, once the WHO has declared
the pandemic is under way. This triggers
a wave of “panic buying of vaccine and
antivirals” by governments around the
world, in many cases involving far more
money than hundreds of million dollars.
Authorised and interested organisations
recommend national governments to use a
specific antivirals and flu-fighting drug(s)
and inform them that an ‘effective vac-
cine’ is being developed and will be ready
to use shortly.
The secret WHO
emergency committee
For example, the British Medical Journal
(BMJ) highlighted the existence of a se-
cret WHO emergency committee that ad-
vised the WHO Director-General on when
to declare the pandemic. It was claimed
that “WHO was being advised by a group
of people who were deeply embedded with
the pharmaceutical industry, and had a lot
of gain by beating this epidemic into a
pandemic”.5 The BMJ reported that WHO
had, in February 2009 (about a month be-
fore the first cases of the 2009 ‘swine flu’
outbreak were reported), amended the def-
inition of the pandemic by removing that
pandemic can cause “enormous numbers
No 3 6 January 2017 Current Concerns Page 12
continued on page 13
”Information-Bioterrorism – a new …”
continued from page 11
of deaths and illness”, lowering the bar for
pandemic announcements.6
V – Achieving results
What is to be achieved? Weakening of
the economies and losses, bankruptcies
and threatens to vulnerable businesses
(e.g. loss of trade, inbound tourism,
international travel, etc.), destabilisation
(or even paralysis) of governments and
their public services. Production of antivi-
ral drugs and vaccines creates hundreds of
millions to billions of dollars. For exam-
ple, the Council of Europe’s report about
the ‘2009 swine flu outbreak’ claimed na-
tionalgovernments,theEUandtheWHO
for the “waste of large sums of public
money” 7 and for fuelling “unjustified
scares and fears” 8 over what the report’s
author termed a “pandemic that never re-
ally was”. 9
This new form of mass manipulation –
“information bioterrorism” as a ‘weapon
of mass-manipulation’ can become an in-
strument of big politics, if the ‘pandem-
ic’ threat will be used in the future, de-
liberately.
Difference between info-bioterrorism
and bioterrorism
Q3: We think, that there may exist real
threats. Not everything its hysteria? How
can we distinguish info-bioterrorism from
bioterrorism?
To distinguish informational bioterrorism
from bioterrorism is not easy, but possi-
ble. In practice, should a suspicious disease
event occur, it would be difficult to deter-
mine quickly if it was caused by nature,
an accident, sabotage, or an act of biologi-
cal warfare or bio-terrorism. Consequently,
the preparation and response to a biological
event, whether natural, accidental or deliber-
ate, is identical and would involve the co-or-
dination of organisations from many sectors
(including secret services) who together pos-
sess the capability to determine the causes
and attributes to a specific source, and also
to the organizers of that deliberate action.
However, there are certain differences.
I point out the more likely ones.
Bioterrorism: Deliberate use
of deadly-disease causing agents
Firstly, in the case of bioterrorism, the
causes are always deliberate. They always
contain the deliberate use of deadly-dis-
ease causing agents to harm or kill hu-
mans, animals or plants. Biological weap-
ons also generally consist of two parts – a
deliberately weaponised agent and a de-
livery mechanism.
The biological weaponry agents can
be deliberately enhanced from their nat-
ural state to make them more suitable for
mass production, storage, and dissemina-
tion as weapons. In this case, laboratory
tests can strongly determine the artificial
origin of the causative agent. Biological
weapon delivery systems can take a vari-
ety of forms, range from constructed mis-
siles, bombs and spray-tanks on aircraft,
tucks and boats to specially crafted devic-
es for assassinations or sabotage opera-
tions, - it is hard to enumerate them in this
interview.
Acts of bioterrorism
for strategic or military purposes
Secondly, acts of bioterrorism apply in
the first instance for strategic or military
purposes, political assassination, acts of
sabotage to disrupt local infrastructures,
such as, for example, the contamination
of water and food-processing supplies, the
infection of livestock or agricultural pro-
duce to cause economic loss, the creation
of environmental catastrophes, and the
introduction of widespread illness, fear
and mistrust among the public, and sever-
al other negative effects. In my book, ‘Bi-
ological Espionage. Special Operations
of the Soviet and Russian Foreign Intel-
ligence Services in the West’10 and my ar-
ticles I’ve written over the years, I write
in detail how acts of bioterrorism are pre-
pared and are carried out, and I provide a
range of examples.
Thirdly, acts of bioterrorism, despite
the difficulty in counteracting them, can
be effectively contained, using a variety of
technical measures of biological control,
monitoring and containment, and are rela-
tively easy to prevent with the help of spe-
cific measures of secret services.
Fourth, in its nature the act of bioter-
rorism is targeted at a specific geographi-
cal region; that is it has a localized spread
and effect; and its consequences, as a rule,
don’t go outside state borders.
Info-bioterrorism
as a form of global influence
Information bioterrorism – this is a form
of global influence. It can be even more
effective, from the view of consequences
and harm, which it can cause.
Firstly, info-bioterrorism, in comparison
with an act of bioterror is not and does not
apply for strategic or military applications,
political assassination, and acts of sabotage
– to disrupt local infrastructures, to harm the
health of local population, animals, or dis-
rupt the environment of a certain country.
Secondly, its organisers and interested
organizations, use the potential pandem-
ic threat, in order to reach certain results
– I’ve already mentioned such examples,
above.
Propagation through mass media
Thirdly, in the case of info-bioterrorism,
such ‘threat’ is not hidden, as in the case
of bioterrorism attack, but in contrast is
widely publicized in the mass media. The
wider the spread of mass media stories,
the better it is for the organizers of ‘infor-
mation bioterrorism’. However, the organ-
izers of bioterrorism will never tell about
their plans.
Global economic desaster
through info-bioterrorism
Fourthly, economic losses from informa-
tion bioterrorism are quite higher, than the
acts of bioterrorism. In the case of bio-
terrorism, the loss for an individual coun-
try – in monetary value – may range from
a few hundreds of millions to some mil-
liards of dollars, taking into account the
loss for the economy, expenses for the af-
fected infrastructure, loss of exports, ex-
penses for health service, etc. However,
in the case of information bioterrorism,
the costs are quite different – tens to hun-
dreds of milliards of dollars. For example,
economic losses that resulted from SARS
outbreaks in 2002–2003 are evaluated by
the World Bank as more than $15 billion
in the Asian region alone.11,12 The SARS
cost for the global economy was estimated
as about $30 billion.13,14 Economic losses
from the Avian influenza (‘bird flu’) pan-
demic in 2006–2007 were estimated at up
to 20 times higher than SARS, and it es-
timated that it could cost the Asian econ-
omy up to $283 billion.15,16 The expected
world-wide economic disaster would cost
as much as $800 billion if a human pan-
demic lasts for a year.17 The same amount
wasspentbyUSAinIraq.18
To earn on the fear
of a world catastrophe
Fifth, organisers of bioterrorism do not
gain any money. This is because its goal –
is first of all to ruin and harm government
infrastructure, health of people, farm an-
imals and the environment. However, the
organizers of information bioterrorism
– yearn to actually gain some monetary
value. Their aim is to earn on the fear of a
world catastrophe – this is one of the main
peculiarities of info-bioterrorism. Its or-
ganizers earn huge money – tens of mil-
liards of dollars, for example, through the
manufacture and sale of antiviral drugs,
vaccines and other protectives means; this
is eligible, when the people are told that
there’s (yet another) scary virus, which
they cannot stop.
Who earns?
The idea of a pandemic and its trade, is
actively pushed and continues to devel-
op with surprising persistence in mass
media, and even on government websites
–forexample,onUSAwebsitessuchas
pandemicflu.gov or avianflu.gov. For ex-
No 3 6 January 2017 Current Concerns Page 13
”Information-Bioterrorism – a new …”
continued from page 12
continued on page 14
ample,theUSAgovernmentputsinmil-
liards of dollars to support the idea of a
global pandemic, that it may happen, put-
ting hundreds of millions of dollars for the
creation of vaccines against these ‘mass’
horrors.Forexample,Novartis Vaccines
& Diagnostics has been awarded a $487
millioncontractbytheUSDepartmentof
Health and Human Services, a joint ven-
turetotallingnearly$1billionUSinin-
vestment, to produce 50 million doses of
seasonal trivalent flu vaccine, and up to
150 million doses of monovalent vaccine
in preparation for a potential pandemic.19
For example, as a result of H1N1 ‘swine
upandemic’in2009-2010,theU.S.Gov-
ernment initiated the most expensive na-
tional vaccination campaign in American
history and purchased at least 160 million
doses of vaccine against swine flu, cost-
ing $18 billion.20 According to the WHO
Director-General Dr Margaret Chan, vac-
cine makers could produce nearly 5 bil-
lion pandemic flu shots per year in the
best-case scenario.21 The main vaccine
produces (e.g. GlaxoSmithKline) stands to
earn about $50 billion per year from these
vaccine recommendations.22 In a case of
another ‘pandemic’ – the H5N1 avian in-
uenza(‘birdu’)in2006-2007,UNof-
ficials (i.e. Dr David Nabarro, theUNco-
ordinator on avian and human influenza)
claimed that about $1.5 billion was need-
ed as “a beginning to cope with bird flu
and prepare for any possible pandemic.”23
New infection agents come and go –
inconsistencies regarding
swine flu outbreak
Q4: Very often there a new infection
agent ‘pops up’ in the media. Suddenly,
it disappears into the ‘off’. This has hap-
pened with SARDS, bird flu, swine flu,
Ebola, Zika. Sometimes one asks himself:
“is it man-made or really from nature?”
Given your professional experience, what
do you think about that?
Let’s look, for example, at examples of
outbreaksofH1N1‘swineu’inUSAin
20 09.
In mid of April 2009, the US Govern-
ment had reported 47 conrmed human
cases of swine inuenza H1N1 virus in the
USA and 9 suspect cases. Ofcially, it was
then claimed, that the source of the infec-
tion – were the pig farms in Mexico. How-
ever, according to data from US Centres
of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
most of these cases of infection were not
tied to Mexico, neither with the pigs, nor
with the infected people. It was actually
found, that only 3 people out of the 47 of
those infected visited Mexico, and that 40
people were never in contact with those
infected. In regards to the two cases of the
2 infected people with ‘swine u’ in Cali-
fornia, CDC reported: “not one child had
contacted the pigs, the source of infection
is unknown’.24 Earlier, (15 января 2009),
the US Department of Health and Human
Services signed a contract to the value of
487 million dollars with a company No-
vartis Vaccines & Diagnostics in order to
create vaccines against bird u. And an-
other company Novavax (Rockville-based,
Maryland), produces experimental recom-
binant virus-like particle vaccines, includ-
ing the H1N1 swine u vaccine, which in
2009 were distributed for a clinical trial,
on the territory of USA.25
… questions and possible explanations
One question arises: could it be that the
‘swine flu’ can be caused when different
vaccines have been accidentally swapped?
The only explanation for this, is that the
contaminated vaccine with the ‘swine flu’
DNA,wasspreadforuseinUSAforclin-
ical trials. The manufactured recombinant
vaccine, more likely, was already contam-
inated with the H1N1 virus, which was
similar to the ‘swine flu’ virus. This way,
it is plausible to assume, that the new re-
combinant H1N1 virus was ‘accidentally’
slipped into a vaccine batch to use against
seasonal influenza.
The other possible explanation, is
that the laboratory tests were not accu-
rate. There was a mix-up. Perhaps, H1N1
virus strain which contains a vaccine
against seasonal influenza - was mixed-
up with the 2009-H1N1 ‘swine flu’ viral
strain.Perhaps,USAgovernmentinthis
case was too hasty to declare a ‘danger-
ous threat’, but in fact – deliberately or not
deliberately, they announced an epidemic
and started to trade with it. Or maybe this
‘accidental leak’ was actually necessary as
a trigger mechanism to put into some ac-
tion an ‘active operation’ to test possible
future acts of ‘information bioterrorism’?
SARS 2002-2003, for example
Another example – SARS disease out-
break, 2002–2003. Like the former ‘glob-
al epidemics’, there appeared numerous
“horror stories” in mass media as if from
the war zones. Mass media, senior gov-
ernment officials and international organ-
izations, quickly rushed to inform society,
that a worldwide pandemic is coming and
will cause hundreds of millions of deaths.
There have been no laboratory-confirmed
cases of mutation of a causative virus into
a form that can spread from person to per-
son and its mutation to a dangerous form
that could lead to a world-wide pandemic.
WHO and CDC – contradictions
regarding the death rate
Nevertheless, WHO informs, that “total
number of those affected across the world
is 8,422, and of those 916 people have
died, which comes to 10% of the death
ra te.” 26 The WHO info contradicts info
coming from CDC, in its SARS’ report:
“Since 2003, there have not been known
cases of SARS reported anywhere in the
world”.27
Was SARS artificially created…
I do not exclude a possibility that SARS
virus may have been created as a biologi-
cal weapon in a military laboratory some-
where, and was accidentally or intention-
ally released from an ultra-secure and/
or biodefence lab in Asia. The fact that
SARS may have been artificially created,
was also reported by authoritative aca-
demics and medical doctors.28 ,29 Let’s look
at some facts which may reinforce these
plausibility. The SARS virus is not close-
ly related to any of three known classes
of coronovirus30. Only a computer model,
of the ‘could be virus’ was given to the
science community. Not one single photo-
graph of the virus from laboratory exists;
there’s only a published sequence of a mu-
tated / ordinary coronavirus, which does
cause a seasonal flu illness.31
…and released accidentally?
The genetic makeup of the new virus is a
combination of two well-known viruses,
of which the natural, but not mane-made
(artificial), combination in the natural en-
vironment is impossible. This may be en-
gineered only in a laboratory, and was
likely that SARS was an accidental re-
lease from a bio-medical military labora-
to r y. 32 More detailed analysis of samples,
which were screened in the CDC, using a
very powerful analytical molecular tool –
polymerase chain reaction (PCR), indicat-
ed that the new virus is not closely related
to any known virus at all, human, mouse,
bovine, cat, pig, bird, notwithstanding.33
Other strange peculiarities
There have also been other strange unex-
plainable peculiarities that were found.
“Scientists still do not fully understand
exactly where or how SARS emerged 18
months ago…,” commented Washington
Post.34 Some scientists in the West even
offered to decipher SARS ‘Systematic and
Ribald Scare-mongering’.
I would like to also note, that even
the apparently innocent conventional re-
search experiments with non-harmful mi-
cro-organisms may end in the creation of
pathogenic or even deliberately creation
of extremely deadly form of pathogens.
For example, in Australia in 2001 scien-
tists accidentally created a deadly virus
that, instead of sterilising mice as intend-
ed, killed all its victims in the course of
genetic manipulating a harmless virus.35
The virus, a modified mousepox, which
No 3 6 January 2017 Current Concerns Page 14
”Information-Bioterrorism – a new …”
continued from page 13
continued on page 15
does not affect humans, has raised fears
that the technology could be used for the
development of bio-warfare agents.36 The
virus, that causes polio has been built from
scratchintheUSconventionallab,using
nothing more than genetic sequence infor-
mation from public databases and readily
available technology.37,38 Another exam-
ple,–ascientistfundedbytheUSgovern-
ment has deliberately created an extreme-
ly deadly form of mousepox, a relative of
the smallpox virus, through genetic engi-
neering.39
Mysterious outbreaks of accidentally
created deadly agents
There have been also several incidents
since the Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention has been signed off in 1972.
• The anth rax outbreak in Sverdlovsk
city of the Soviet Union in 1979, –
caused by an accidental release of
deadly weaponised anthrax spores
through a ventilation system of the
Sverdlovsk secret biological arms pro-
duction facility.
• Thesmallpoxvirusescapedfromalab-
oratoryattheUniversityof Birming-
ham in England, 1978.
• AmysteriousoutbreakintheOblivs-
kayavillage,theVolgograd-Rostovre-
gion, Russia, July-August 1999, – af-
fected about 700 people (36 died) in
total in the region. It was suspected that
in the village there was an accidental
release of a synthesized virus which
was originated in a laboratory.40, 41
• Therewere14bio-containmentbreach-
esintheUSAbetween1994and2004
of dangerous disease agents, according
to information from the non-profit, non-
governmental organisation, the Council
for Responsible Genetics, Cambridge,
Massachusetts,USA.42 The agents in-
cluded AIDS, Ebola virus, West Nile
virus, plague, anthrax and tularaemia.
• ThreelaboratoryworkersfromBoston
University,BiosafetyLevel4Laborato-
ry(BSL4),USA,–thelaboratorywith
the highest level of biosafety/security, –
were infected with tularaemia between
May and September 2004.43
• AndIcouldalsocountthreelaboratory
acquired SARS outbreaks in Singapore
(September 2003), Taiwan (December
2003), and Mainland China (March
2004).
This list may be extended. Fortunately
these accidentally created deadly agents
did not result in any disease outbreaks
(excerpt the Sverdlovsk’s and Oblivs-
kaya’s cases of cause). But how many sim-
ilar deadly pathogens may be accidentally
and/or deliberately created in convention-
al and/or biodefence laboratories in a fu-
ture? This also raises the worrying pos-
sibility that similar approaches may be
used by a skilled research-scientist to cre-
ate dangerous pathogens or resurrect in-
fectious diseases without having to gain
access to protected viral stocks.
Propaganda effects especially people
who are not well informed
Q5: Many people consider themselves
as well informed about each and every-
thing and what is beyond this informa-
tion is labelled conspiracy theory. How
to deal with this and explain them they
are wrong?
Propaganda is the main weapon to in-
fluence people, especially if they are not
well informed. An ordinary human being
it appears only has a ‘surface’ knowledge
about how real these kinds of threats are,
and is used to rely on the opinions of mass
media.
What was formerly considered
a conspiracy theory, is now a fact
What was formerly considered a conspira-
cy theory, is now a fact. For example, the-
ory of Giordano Bruno, that the Earth is
not flat but round, and Galileo Galilei’s
theory that it spins and rotates around the
sun, and not the other way around. Bruno
was burnt at the stake for his ‘devilish the-
ory’, and Galilei was pushed to publicly
denounce his theory.
It is necessary to hear another view,
however strange or paradoxical it may
seem, to talk about the problem and
search for truth. It is necessary to bring
scientists to the discussion – they are the
one who are less influenced by the public
opinion, as the nature of academia is the
search for truth. It’s important to bring
philosophers and philanthropists, peo-
ple from the sphere of education, and not
to use propaganda about how to prepare
food and how to survive on Treasure Is-
land.
Good education and parenting –
best protection against propaganda
and manipulation
It all starts from school and children’s up-
bringing. Eastern wisdom says “today’s
children, tomorrow’s generation”. You
have to raise a person to be a creator, not
a dumbed-down consumer.
In today’s education system, kids are
given tests with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ answer.
They are not taught how to be creators
and to think and solve complex puzzles;
they are not given written exercises,
not given essays on certain philosoph-
ical themes. We are to be used to press
the button Yahoo or Google, and there’s
the answer! And this is a big depend-
ency, as if we are drug-addicts. Such
is the way that people are raised, with-
out one’s own opinion, because one’s
thoughts are formulated by the means
of the mass media.
Manipulation through internet
and social media
Maybe, for someone it is not profitable that
people become smarter? This can also be
considered as a conspiracy theory. But don’t
we see, how the education programmes in
various countries become somehow dimin-
ished, supressed, weakened? The modern
information space is a very comfortable
way for a spurt of conspiracy theories. But
this is half the problem. Internet and social
networks, - are very powerful way to influ-
ence a person. These means should be used
for good purposes. Otherwise, in the pub-
lic mind, there will be formed false themes,
which would lead people away from the
reality. The problem is also that through
some ‘false idea’, people would be mis-
led from the source of the problem to some
made-up artificial story. This can be made
up by an effective operation – through ‘the
Overton window’,44 which also known
as the window of discourse, which is the
range of ideas the public will accept. It is
used by media pundits.
During the past 20 years, the world has
become virtual, that is full of information.
Let’s not be naïve and close our eyes on
the fact that the world is in a state of in-
fluence with information. Perhaps, there’s
even information wars, because influence
over people with information – is a pow-
erful weapon for mass manipulation. The
first victim of such influence is – the truth.
Only educated persons are able
to differentiate between
conspiracy and truth
Today there are in use new technolo-
gies in order to manipulate mass con-
sciousness, which were not here previ-
ously. Due to them, which are used for
total disorientation, people are not even
aware of what goes on in the world. And
all of this are long-standing operations
of secret services, who take part in rais-
ing the new generation. Only an educat-
ed person is in the position to differenti-
ate between a conspiracy, as such, from
the truth.
Lies become political weapon. That is
why we need to bring up people with a con-
scious, alert view on today’s world events;
a view with a wish to act. In today’s world,
we simply cannot sit and not do anything.
It’s not good to be on the side-lines, simply
a spectator. Conspiracy theories may be-
come a real threat, if their purpose is to de-
liberately brainwash people.
We must know what we are fighting for
– this will allow us to protect ourselves
and the affected populations, to maintain
our humanity.
No 3 6 January 2017 Current Concerns Page 15
”Information-Bioterrorism – a new …”
continued from page 14
Real and honest information exchange
offers true protection
How can a person escape untruthful infor-
mation and how is it possible to tell peo-
ple that they are misled? I think that here
the main role can play conferences and
forums, like the one which recently hap-
pened – ‘Mut zur Ethik’. Real and honest,
direct information exchange is very im-
portant. The latter can be done via honest
and objective means of mass information,
for example, like your publication – news-
papers Zeit Fragen and Current Con-
cerns. Maybe, we can even think about
creating an electronic website, where can
be published analytical overviews on cur-
rent affairs, translated into other languag-
es.
Thank you for the interview,
Dr Kouzminov
1 Swine flu pandemic ‘caused by accidental leak
from laboratory’, Daily Mail, 30 June 2009.
2 USA Today, 10.08.2005
3 UnitedNations.Me etingCoverageandP ressRe-
leases.PressconferencebyUNSystemseniorCo-
ordinator for Avian human influen za David Nabar-
ro. 29 Sept., 2005.
4 UnitedNationsSe cretar y-GeneralKofi Annan said
in a message to the internat ional conference, Bei-
jing, 2006 (more than 100 count ries par ticipated).
– Record $1.9 billion pledged to fight bird flu. Bei-
jing, Thursday’s Globe and Mail, Jan. 19, 2006.
5 Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease.
BMJ 2013:346:f3037; www.bmj.com/content /346/
bmj.f3037 (Published 16 May 2013)
6 WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies”. BMJ
2010 ;340 :c2912; www.bmj.com/content/340 /bmj.
c2912 ( Published 04 June 2010)
7 EuropetoinvestigatetheUNover“Pa ndemic”
scam, Ca nada Free Press, 02 January 2010.
8 EUpondersswi neuvaccineponders.EU Observ-
er, 10 February 2010
9 “Pharmaceutical companies banked more than $7
billion as governments stockpiled drugs.” Swine
flu experts’ ties to big farma. 04 June 2010. The
Guardian.
10 Kouzminov, A. ‘Biological Espionage: S pecial
Operatio ns of the Soviet and Russian Foreign In-
telligence Ser vices in the West’. Greenhill Books;
First Edition, 2005, 192 pp.
11 World Bank. Issue Brief: Avian and Human Pan-
demicInuenzasUpdate,December14,2007.
12 Saywell, T. et al. The cost of SARS: $11bln and
rising. Far Eastern Economic Review, 24 April,
2003.
13 World Bank (2014), World Development Report.
Pandemic R isk, by Olga B. Jonas.
14 Daniel, Ben-Ami, The cost of SARS. What a health
panic can do to the global economy, May 7, 2003.
15 World Bank war ns of bird flu cost. BBC News On-
line, November 03, 2005.
16 World Bank (2008), Evaluating the Economic Con-
sequences of Avian Influenza, by And rew Burns.
17 World Bank. Avian flu. Available from: http:/ /live.
worldbank .org/avian-flu [Accessed: 04 August,
2016 ].
18 CostofNationalSecurity.FightingforaU.S.fed-
eral budget that works for all Americans; https:/ /
www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ [Accessed: 04
Aug ust, 2016 ].
19 Joel Lord, RM: The problem with vacci nes Part 3
– Synthetic genom ics & the death of natural i m-
munity. 12 January, 2011; http://vaccineresistance-
movement.org/?p=6880 [Accessed: 23 September,
2016 ]
20 SwineFluReview:TheCaseforReformingU.S.
Emergency Health Laws; http: //www.pandemicre-
sponseproject.com/pdf/SwineFluReview.pdf [Ac-
cessed: 02 October, 2016]
21 The Worldwide H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic, Glob-
al Research, August 04, 2009; http://www.global-
research.ca /the-worldwide-h1n1-swine-flu-
pandemic/14629?print=1 [Accessed: 02 October,
2016 ]
22 Drugs giant GlaxoSmithKline predicts swine flu
gold rush. The Guardian, 22 July, 2009.
23 About $1.5 bill ion needed to stop virus spread,
prepare for pa ndemic. MSN BC News, 01 Januar y,
2006.
24 CDC, Swine Flu (April 21, 2009) Swine Influen-
za A (H1N1) Infection in Two Children – Southern
Califor nia, March–April 2009; https://flutrackers.
com/forum/forum /united-states /47612-cdc-swine-
flu-mmwr- april-21-3009
25 Report to the President on Reengineer ing the In-
uenzaVaccineProductionEnter prisetoMeetthe
Challenges of Pa ndemic Influenza. Executive Of-
fice of the President. President’s Council of Ad-
visors on Science and Technology. August 2010;
https: //www.whitehouse.gov/sites /default /files/mi-
crosites/ostp/PCAST-Influenza-Vaccinology-Re-
port.pdf
26 WHO. Consensus document on the epidemiolo-
gy of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS),
2003.
27 CDC, SARS, www.cdc.gov/sars/in dex.html
28 Alexand re Batalin, Atypical pneumonia vir us has
been created art ificially, RIA Novosti News Agen-
cy, April 10, 2003, http://news.softpedia.com /
news/ 2/2003/ April/3 043.shtml
29 Richa rd D. Fisher Jr, SARS crisis: Don’t rule out
linkages to China’s biowarfare, China Brief, vol. 3,
no. 8, April 22, 2003, http: //china.jamestown.org
30 Marco A. Marra, Steven J.M. Jones, Caroline As-
tell et al, The Genome sequence of the SARS-asso-
ciated coronovirus, Science 2003, 300 :1399-1404.
31 For example, CDC, SARS-associated coronavi-
rus(SARS-CoV)sequencing;ht tp:/ /www.cdc.gov/
sars/lab /sequence.html
32 For example, Blagov, S. Russia puts Chi na at
SARS length. Asia Times, May 12, 2003; http://
www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7180-10.cfm; SARS
virus could be China’s bioweapon: Russian exper t.
Press Trust of India, April 11, 2003; http://www.
expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=20498;
SARS virus genetically engineers? Science in So-
ciety, Summer 20 03, vol. 19; http:// www.i-sis.org.
uk/isisnews/sis19.php
33 Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Infection I Humans.
New England Jour nal of Medicine, (2003),
348(20):1967–76.
34 Washington Post, 29 May 2004.
35 Novak, R. Killer vi rus: An engineered mouse virus
leaves us one step away from the u ltimate bioweap-
on. New Scientist Online News, January 10, 2001.
36 New Scientist (Nov 2003) 1:6 -7.
37 Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1072266
38 Cohen, P. ‘Recipes for bioter ror: Censor ing Sci-
ence’. NewScientist.com, January 18, 2003; http://
www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id- dn3266
39 MacKenzie,D.USdevelopslethalnewvirus.New
Scientist, November 20 03, vol.1, pp. 6–7.
40 Kouzmi nov, A. “False Flag, Ethic Bombs and Day
X” in interview for Califor nia Litera ry Review,
USA,25April20 05;http://calitreview.com/Inter-
views/int_kouzminov_8013.htm
41 Kouzminov, A. Biological Agent. NBC Internation-
al, Summer, July 2005: 54-58
42 No Biosecurity without Biosafety. ISIS Press Re-
lease 16/03/05 (htt p://w ww.i-sis.org.uk/Biosecuri-
tyBiosafety.php)
43 No Biosecurity without Biosafety. ISIS Press Re-
lease 16/03/05 (htt p://w ww.i-sis.org.uk/Biosecuri-
tyBiosafety.php)
44 ‘The Overton window’ is originated by Joseph P.
Overton (1960–2003) a former vice-president of the
Mackinae Centre for Public Policy. Joseph P. Over-
ton in his description of his window claimed t hat an
idea’s political viability depends mainly on whether
it falls within the window, rather than on politicians’
individual preferences. Accord ing to Overton’s de-
scription, his window includes a range of policies
considered politically acceptable in the current cli-
mate of public opinion, which a politician can rec-
ommend without being considered too extreme to
gain or keep public office (see more i n Wilkipedia).