Laurie Do
Angela Lumenello
Demon in the Freezer Note: Part 2
Notes: pages 137-283

Lisa Hensley—father had mild form of hemophilia, genetic disease occurs in males, but inherited
through female carriers
o
Hensley, star athlete, was fascinated with diseases and how to stop them
o
Redirected to work on Ebola virus—didn’t want to at first (partly due to wearing a blue
suit)
o
Trained by Steven J. Hatfill—researching coagulation of monkey blood infected with
Ebola
o
Hensley did lab work on monkey blood infected with Ebolabecame good at making
amplified Ebola well plate of Ebola soup = 5 million lethal doses of the virus – enough
to make half of NYC bleed out
o
Hensley wasn’t feeling well, then accidentally stabbed through her work gloves and cut
her finger


After the incident, she was advised not to share bodily fluids with anyone in case
she potentially had Ebola
In 2000, WHO allowed smallpox research for 3 years tested smallpox on monkeys, since
deadline was approaching, needed experiment to seem “vaguely promising” or wouldn’t allow to
do another experiment on it
o
13th International Poxvirus Symposium—poster described using viruses to cut down
populations of mice (closely related to smallpox) created vaccine-resistant pox of mice
o
In 2001, the experiment with monkeys begins injected monkeys with 1 billion
particles of Harper smallpox

Day 4 (for monkeys with Harper strain), but Day 3 (for monkeys with India
strain)  2 monkeys from India group died (spotty starlike red spots,
hemorrhage all over their faces)
o
Necropsy (postmortem exam) on monkey  virus spread completely internally, worse
than Ebola because variola comes straight into air from animal’s cavity
o
Fourth monkey had pustules on hands, feet, and face
o
Monkey injected with Harper was the only survivor
• The Anthrax Race Begins:
o
Anthrax scare on October 16, 2001—afraid laced with smallpox, spores found to have
additives spores in post offices  some workers went home sick
o
USAMRIID analyzes the anthrax found in the Daschle letter: determines it is
“professionally done” and “energetic”
o
USAMRIID, the CDC, and FBI all are trying to cooperate to find answers - many
miscommunications
o
USAMRIID sees the anthrax is eroding (looks like human skulls) - how could this have
been made? Who made this?

o
Disagreement on the potency and the power of the Daschle anthrax continue
between FBI, USAMRIID, and Batelle (private company looking into the
anthrax)
Peter Jahrling determines anthrax was not Iraqi made (it was not heavy and crude and
contained no clay/dirt)

What is a biological weapon? 

Where/who did this anthrax come from? 

Was it a terrorist attack or an internal terrorist? 

Could the person who made this anthrax be from USAMRIID?

o
o
Biological weapons are more effective than nuclear weapons
o
Biological weapons are cheap and easy to make
USAMRIID finds that the Daschle anthrax was mixed with powdered glass: allowing
anthrax to pass easily through porous substances and fly wildly: spreading faster.

EPA spent 30 million dollars riding anthrax from the Brentwood mail facility 

o
Discussion of biological warfare:
5 deaths total
Amerithrax case: FBI investigation on who sent this anthrax

one of the most complex cases undertaken by the FBI

little to no leads 

FBI profilers believed that the anthrax terrorist was a white male, a loner, shy,
had a grudge, spoke english as a first language and had significant scientific
training 

Forensic samples came back with NO physical evidence - meaning that the
perpetrator had sealed the letter in a flow hood, used a breathing mask, and suited
up. 

Anthrax was found to be a sub-strain of the Ames strain (non-military) 

Many believed the the September 11th and anthrax investigations were “not
necessarily separate” 

“Opsec”: operational security: when the leader directs the criminal operation and
has an expendable carry it out 

Steven Hatfill: (ebola researcher, trained Lisa Henley): Suspect in Amerithrax 

attempted to clear his name, his career was ruined

The Bacchus Program that Hatfill was involved in was not properly
supervised - suspicious activity surrounding anthrax

Many of Hatfill’s claims about himself did not check out
• Smallpox as a Bio-Weapon
o
IL-4 gene could make smallpox a super variola: no vaccine
o
Experiment conducted on mouse pox and IL-4 gene: vaccinated mice were eradicated by
pox
o
IL-4 signals immune system to create antibodies, the more antibodies the host makes the
cellular immunity decreases, making host vulnerable
o
Information to make IL-4 smallpox available to everyone: already known to biologists,
never thought could be used for bioweapon
o
Biologists could not duplicate the Jackson-Ramshaw mousepox experiment: rather they
found recently vaccinated mice had a better chance of survival then mice with older
vaccinations
o
Sense of responsibility among biologists: a moral code to not make biological weapons of
mass destruction
o
“Eradication” of smallpox had not worked

Smallpox exists in freezers across the world, it is being manipulated and
experimented on

“The virus’s last strategy for survival was to bewitch its host and become a
source of power.” (283) 
After Thoughts:

A person died of AIDS through blood transfusions tainted with HIV when blood wasn’t tested 
shouldn’t there have been protocols on this? If the world was advanced enough to do blood
transfusions, wouldn’t there be procedures to detect this?

Hensley didn’t sleep much because of her goals—I believe it is not passion that separates
achievers from the rest, but the dedication to that passion

Hensley was not originally interested in Ebola, but ended up working with it

Hensley was only paid $38,000 a year; with advanced degrees like hers, I assumed she would be
paid a much higher salary; especially when it is advancing our human knowledge about diseases
and the risk of contamination is higher

I wonder if these scientists are traumatized knowing/doing the things they do at labs –especially
experimenting on animals or knowing that what they have in their hands could kill millions

If these experiment results were in the hands of the wrong person – it could devastate the world

Scientists who do research, like Hensley, need to put their lives on hold for their career—this
dawned on me when she had to cancel her date due to the Ebola scare

Advanced technology has made it simple for people to learn how to create weapons, such as
bombs, and ultimately viruses

People in the US were against the vaccine-resistant smallpox, but isn’t the US involved in their
own smallpox research? – I believe that citizens should be well informed of the research going on
because it may have an impact on them

Interesting to read how scientists do experiments and decontaminate themselves after working in
a blue suit

How do the researchers do experiment on animals and not show empathy while infecting them
with fatal diseases?

Animal-use law prohibits necropsy or surgical procedures on an animal within the sight of other
animals of the same species why does it have to be the same species? Animals from different
species still realize what is being done

The statement on page 185 about the virus killing all of the monkeys so that the workers will be
out in 2 weeks was perturbing because these people cared more about leaving than the monkeys
dying

Doing the line of work that these people do, when they are placed in a social environment outside
of a lab, it seems that they are disconnected from society because of their knowledge derived
from their work?

Animal research should not be used to advance our knowledge or save lives because these
animals have different compositions and anatomies—the drugs they find to cure them may or
may not work on humans

I recall reading that all the animal research done in the world has contributed to around less than
10% of human vaccines

Descriptions of monkey’s physical appearances from disease was hard to read

Did Hatfill have any real involvement in the production of Anthrax?
o
8 years after the anthrax attacks, FBI concluded that Bruce Ivins (a USAMRIID
biodefense expert) was guilty of the anthrax attacks.

Ivins killed himself before the FBI could get him in custody 

What are the moral implications of using a bioweapon? Is morality the only thing that protects us
from full out global biological warfare?

Similarities between nuclear power and biological power?

What does the existence of easily produced and distributed bio-weapons mean in the balance of
world power? How afraid should the United States really be?

Ramifications of a biological attack in the U.S.? Would there be worldwide ramifications? Panic
factor?
Smallpox Debate
For Destroying Smallpox:
Logical Argument:
1. The only purpose of keeping smallpox is to study it and develop anti-virals/vaccines against it. But if it
is destroyed and the use of it as a weapon is morally condemned, there is no need to have protection
against it. (Preston 252)
2. What did infecting monkeys with variola do? It tortured and killed all but one of the monkeys and it
cost a lot of money, but nothing substantial was gained from the experiment except proving that
smallpox could have an animal host - something very scary in terms of the world's future. (Preston
189)
3. We already have the DNA sequence of the virus. Why do we need to keep the physical virus locked
away, when, if the need ever arises, we can make an artificial version?
Ethical Argument:
1. Smallpox has not been completely eradicated because the committee in charge of its eradication is
dominated by global north scientists who do not necessarily have the well being of lower developed
countries in mind.
2. Creation of engineered smallpox and hybrids could unleash a biological weapon that we cannot
contain and can have devastating effects on the world’s population.
3. The more smallpox experiments conducted, the higher chance of an accident occurring and potentially
releasing smallpox.
4. Our generation does not remember the devastating effects of smallpox. All of the scientists involved
in the eradication want smallpox destroyed because they have seen the first hand effects of its
destruction.
5. Native American Perspective: Native American populations were devastated by weaponized smallpox
brought upon them by colonial forces. Smallpox completely wiped out their people, altering their
culture and history. Indigenous people do not have any sort of natural protection against smallpox,
and we are risking the lives of indigenous people across the globe by holding on to the virus.
Economic Argument:
1.
In terms of cost-benefit, why should we spend more money on a disease through research and
development when we have already spent so much money on in it’s eradication?
2.
Can we afford to risk a potential public health disaster that could cost us millions of dollars and
lives to clean up?
3.
The development of a new smallpox drug could cost up to 300 million dollars. If there is no need
for the development of that drug, that 300 million dollars could be spent aiding diseases that
actually exist. (Preston 130)
4.
Keeping the smallpox virus and the vaccine in freezers is wasting thousands of dollars that could
be spent elsewhere.
Keeping Smallpox:

Possibility it can exist outside and biomedical warfare, have something to protect ourselves
with

Distress between countries and organizations, which other countries have virus, to create
biowarfare

viruses arise in nature naturally, mutate, possibility (may use old ones to compare it to)

Vaccination right now isn't very good, need more time and research to come up with a drug
or procedure to deal with it in ways that they don't have adverse reactions

Able to put research into this virus now, come up with solution

from economic standpoint: long term is beneficial because if u find treatment compared to
short term

Virus evolves really slowly, research fast enough to find cure or better antiviral drug

Stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun

HIV is one of worst virus, keeping smallpox means finding a link, more treatment, or cure

Ecosystem standpoint: imbalance, keep to prevent tipping point of ecosystem
Counter-argument:

Important to do research but we have other viruses we can study, impossible to create vaccine for
resistant strain

Educated people working to do research, but what about Lisa Hensley, room for human error

Dead bodies dug in, eradication like cremation would be decomposed by now, once scabs fall off
then body itself is no longer contaminated, unless scabs saved

Construction workers and CDC, accidentally dug up a body of a person with smallpox, CDC said
was safe

How the WHO destroyed majority of stockpile of vaccine, doesn't have funds or won't invest in
vaccine?

Biowarfare points: spur more incentive for other countries to keep it, if any country unleashed
smallpox, it would have a boomerang effect, nuclear weapons are smarter decisions to unleash
havoc
Counter-argue pro-eradication:

Today we do not have immunity to protect everybody globally

To address accidents: accidents can happen anywhere with anything

Other poxvirus out there

Genes sequence is publicly available so people can reengineer it keep it to research and to
prevent biomedical warfare

Government can't be trusted, but then how are you going to trust them to eradicate it?
Thoughts:

If the world will never be able to agree on this, how will we ever find a solution to the problem?

If more citizens of the world were educated in this matter, we may be a step closer to finally
eradicating it. I did not know how severe this disease truly was until taking this class. In addition,
it has made me more hyper-aware of Ebola’s effects in society today. Especially now that
someone in Dallas, Texas has it.

I am for eradicating the disease because if arguments of distrust arise, then surely we are no
longer able to cooperate with any other country. People receive trust by trusting others first, if
neither are willing to trust the other, then society is doomed to fail.

The debate about smallpox is a continuous cycle of arguing and counter-arguing with the same
main points, the in-class debate has made me realize that if this cycle continues, the decision is
going to be prolonged another thirty years.

I am fervently against animal experimentation, and if eradicating the strains for good will reduce
the number of animal experimentations, then I am all for it.