5 ms·

The arguments presented there make very little sense. 1) Lyme existed before > So decades before Lyme was identified – and before military scientists could ha

The arguments presented there make very little sense. 1) Lyme existed before > So decades before Lyme was identified – and before military scientists could have altered or weaponized it – the bacterium that causes it was living in the wild. Of course it was, regardless of whether the conspiracy theory is correct. If it was a bioweapon, do you think they were engineering a fully synthetic bacterial genome de novo? In the '60s and '70s, decades before the first publicly known successes with fully synthetic genomes in the 2000s? It would be far more reasonable to assume they were working from a reference species, selectively breeding, maybe inducing mutations or engaging in some rudimentary gene editing (although the latter seems unlikely). 2) The genetic distribution doesn't support the conspiracy theory > Population genetics research on Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacterial agent of Lyme disease, suggest that the northeastern, Midwestern and Californian bacteria are separated by geographical barriers that prevent these populations from mixing. > Had there been a lab strain, particularly one engineered to be more transmissible, that escaped within the last 50 years, there would be greater genetic similarity between these three geographic populations. There is no evidence for a recent single source – such as a release from a lab – for Lyme disease spirochetes. Keeping in mind the counterargument to point 1) above, this argument is wild. If we assume that a weaponized form of Borrelia burgdorferi was created from a wild specimen, we would absolutely expect specific variants to only exist in certain regions, particularly the region in which the conspiracy theories allege an outbreak of the weaponized form occurred. The paper the author references here even notes that the worst strains were not found in California [0]: > Eight of the most common ospC genotypes in the northeastern United States, including genotypes I and K that are associated with disseminated human infections, were absent in Mendocino County nymphs. This all seems very consistent with the most likely scenario if there was in fact an effort to weaponize the bacteria and it was released in the northeast. 3) Lyme isn't a good bioweapon > One of the most important characteristics of a biowarfare agent is its ability to quickly disable target soldiers. Unless the goal is to softly neutralize Communist sympathizers, unfriendly foreign leaders, and left wing politicians. This thesis is in fact wholly refuted by the fact that the CIA plotted to use tuberculosis as a bioweapon to neutralize Fidel Castro in the '60s [1]. > Lyme disease does make some people very sick but many have just a flu-like illness that their immune system fends off. Again, consistent with the theory that there is a weaponized strain in the wild alongside less harmful natural strains. Final note: none of this is really evidence *for* the conspiracy theory, but those arguments against all seem totally specious. [0]: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/AEM.01704-09 https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/AEM.01704-09 [1]: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/21523-document-09 https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/21523-document-09 (footnote on page 137)

jmull 3y ago
> It would be far more reasonable to assume they were working from a reference species Not if the species was unknown to science. What would they reference? > Again, consistent with the theory that there is a weaponized strain in the wild alongside less harmful natural strains. Well, where is this weaponized strain? It’s not as though variability in the impact of a bacterial disease is a sign of bio-weaponization. > This thesis is in fact wholly refuted by the fact that the CIA plotted to use tuberculosis as a bioweapon to neutralize Fidel Castro in the '60s You must have read the footnote you cite… so you know the plan was to use a gifted scuba equipment as a delivery mechanism as a kind of soft assassination attempt on a specific individual. Is there really any argument that this plot (which was not executed) suggests anything about their general bio weapon approach? The reality is, Lyme isn’t a good bioweapon… it’s slow, weak and easily treated with cheap and common antibiotics. > but those arguments against all seem totally specious, Frankly, I don’t think you’ve really addressed them.
- strbean 3y ago
  Of course all speculation, but: > Not if the species was unknown to science. What would they reference? Perhaps a novel bacterium they found in a known disease carrying parasite in their back yard. Doesn't seem remotely outlandish. If I was looking for a stealth bioweapon, I would try that avenue as well. And there is precedent for significant discoveries being kept under wraps for extended periods before being independently discovered and released to the public. See public key cryptography, which was discovered secretly at GCHQ and only became public 6 years later with Diffie-Hellman. > Well, where is this weaponized strain? It’s not as though variability in the impact of a bacterial disease is a sign of bio-weaponization. I suppose in the wild in the northeast, and presumed to be a natural variant? > Is there really any argument that this plot (which was not executed) suggests anything about their general bio weapon approach? The reality is, Lyme isn’t a good bioweapon… it’s slow, weak and easily treated with cheap and common antibiotics. Moving goalposts. Different weapons have different characteristics which make them useful for different things. The fact that a biological agent would not be good for "bioweapon use-case A" is not an argument that it isn't a bioweapon. The anecdote is proof positive that the US has planned to use biological agents with similar attributes to this hypothetical biological agent as a weapon. The whole argument here amounts to saying "The army would never use knives as weapons, they are so ineffective. You have to be close range, and you can't kill that many people effectively with them!" And when I point out that they do, in fact, use knives as weapons, you just reiterate the same line? > (which was not executed) (stated reason: because the would-be assassin had already given Castro a dive suit, and another would arouse suspicion)

jmull 3y ago

> It would be far more reasonable to assume they were working from a reference species Not if the species was unknown to science. What would they reference? > Again, consistent with the theory that there is a weaponized strain in the wild alongside less harmful natural strains. Well, where is this weaponized strain? It’s not as though variability in the impact of a bacterial disease is a sign of bio-weaponization. > This thesis is in fact wholly refuted by the fact that the CIA plotted to use tuberculosis as a bioweapon to neutralize Fidel Castro in the '60s You must have read the footnote you cite… so you know the plan was to use a gifted scuba equipment as a delivery mechanism as a kind of soft assassination attempt on a specific individual. Is there really any argument that this plot (which was not executed) suggests anything about their general bio weapon approach? The reality is, Lyme isn’t a good bioweapon… it’s slow, weak and easily treated with cheap and common antibiotics. > but those arguments against all seem totally specious, Frankly, I don’t think you’ve really addressed them.

strbean 3y ago
Of course all speculation, but: > Not if the species was unknown to science. What would they reference? Perhaps a novel bacterium they found in a known disease carrying parasite in their back yard. Doesn't seem remotely outlandish. If I was looking for a stealth bioweapon, I would try that avenue as well. And there is precedent for significant discoveries being kept under wraps for extended periods before being independently discovered and released to the public. See public key cryptography, which was discovered secretly at GCHQ and only became public 6 years later with Diffie-Hellman. > Well, where is this weaponized strain? It’s not as though variability in the impact of a bacterial disease is a sign of bio-weaponization. I suppose in the wild in the northeast, and presumed to be a natural variant? > Is there really any argument that this plot (which was not executed) suggests anything about their general bio weapon approach? The reality is, Lyme isn’t a good bioweapon… it’s slow, weak and easily treated with cheap and common antibiotics. Moving goalposts. Different weapons have different characteristics which make them useful for different things. The fact that a biological agent would not be good for "bioweapon use-case A" is not an argument that it isn't a bioweapon. The anecdote is proof positive that the US has planned to use biological agents with similar attributes to this hypothetical biological agent as a weapon. The whole argument here amounts to saying "The army would never use knives as weapons, they are so ineffective. You have to be close range, and you can't kill that many people effectively with them!" And when I point out that they do, in fact, use knives as weapons, you just reiterate the same line? > (which was not executed) (stated reason: because the would-be assassin had already given Castro a dive suit, and another would arouse suspicion)