Here is the current modern liberal progressive official website of the Nobel Prize and its biography of one of its winners. I know it is long, but I’m reproducing the entire thing.
Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet was born at Traralgon, Victoria, Australia, on September 3rd, 1899. He is the son of the Manager of the branch of the Colonial Bank in that town. He was educated at the Victoria State Schools and at Geelong College, completing his medical course at the University of Melbourne, where he graduated M.B., B.S., in 1922, and M.D., in 1923.
In 1923, Burnet went to the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of the University of Melbourne to do research work on the agglutinin reactions in typhoid fever. He was from 1923-1924 Resident Pathologist at the Melbourne Hospital.
In 1926 he was awarded a Beit Fellowship for Medical Research and worked for a year at the Lister Institute, London.
In 1932 he spent a year at the National Institute for Medical Research, Hampstead, London. Otherwise, apart from many visits to various countries to give lectures or for other purposes, he has worked continuously at the Hall Institute in Melbourne.
In 1944 he became Director of this Institute and Professor of Experimental Medicine in the University of Melbourne.
It is impossible to give, in a brief space, an adequate idea of the range and fundamental importance of Burnet’s work. His work on the agglutinins of typhoid fever mentioned above was followed by the work on viruses for which he is nowadays justly famous. In 1935 he isolated a strain of influenza A virus in Australia, and subsequently did much work on serological variations of the influenza virus and on Australian strains of the swine influenza. He also published papers on variations in the virulence of influenza virus and on the mutation rates in it, which he calculated.
In 1946, in collaboration with W. I. B. Beveridge, Burnet devised a technique for cultivating viruses on the chorioallantoic membrane of chicken embryos and a method for determining the relative concentration of the material inoculated into these membranes by counting and statistically analysing the number of lesions that then appear on the membranes.
In 1947 he discovered, in collaboration with Stone, the receptor-destroying enzyme present in Vibrio cholerae, a discovery which led to the synthesis of neuraminic acid and to the demonstration, by Gottschalk and Cornforth, that purified influenza virus will quantitatively split the acetylgalactosamine neuraminic acid compound. Later it was shown that this enzyme derived from Vibrio cholerae can prevent infection by the influenza to a significant degree.
Burnet did much other important work on certain aspects of the prevention of virus infections and on important biological aspects of virus growth inside the cells in which they can live. He found that the filamentous forms of some viruses (e.g. those of myxoviruses such as those which cause influenza, mumps, fowl plague, and Newcastle disease) can be ruptured by suspending them in water, and suggested that their infectivity is limited to their tips, so that these filamentous forms can, as later work showed, be regarded as having an infective «warhead» composed of nucleic acid and a long tail composed of non-infective viral haemagglutinin.
Other aspects of Burnet’s work are his work on the surface properties of these filamentous forms, which are, he found, similar to those of cell surfaces, and his work with the haemagglutinin found in extracts of tissue infected with vaccinia, which can, he found, be precipitated by a saturated solution of ammonium sulphate and by cobra venom. He has also added much to our knowledge of the haemagglutination of red blood cells by various animal viruses, and has made contributions of fundamental importance to our knowledge of the genetic complexity of virus particles, and to the genetic interactions between related viruses which simultaneously infect the same cell and their relations to the transfer of neuropathogenicity. In addition, he has increased our knowledge of the inhibition of viruses by various substances, and of the complex details of immunological methods of studying viruses and of the immunology of viral infections.
Burnet has embodied his experience and experimental results, not only in numerous scientific papers, but in several books which show that he is a master, not only of a clear and attractive literary style, but also of lucid exposition of complex ideas and scientific facts.
Burnet received many honours and distinctions, among which the Fellowship of the Royal Society of London (1942), where he was awarded the Royal Medal in 1947 and the Copley Medal in 1959, and where he delivered the Croonian Lecture in 1950. He holds an honorary doctorate of the University of Cambridge, and was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1953. He was knighted in 1951, and in 1958 he received the Order of Merit.
Burnet married Edith Linda Druce in 1928. They have one son, Ian, and two daughters, Elizabeth (Mrs. Paul M. Dexter) and Deborah (Mrs. John Giddy).
Burnet was a co-winner of the prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1960. He died on August 31, 1985.
He was survived by millions of Asians that he tried to kill.
Missing from the description of this winner of the Order of Merit, was his attempt to get the Australian government to finance and implement biological pre-emptive warfare to cause genocide among all the brown people he felt would threaten Australia’s white citizens. Here are his own words, as reported in The Age:
Specifically to the Australian situation, the most effective counter-offensive to threatened invasion by overpopulated Asiatic countries would be directed towards the destruction by biological or chemical means of tropical food crops and the dissemination of infectious disease capable of spreading in tropical but not under Australian conditions
While, Burnet was invited to write a report in response to the perceived threat of other countries developing biological weapons, the report in the age, “Burnet’s solution: The plan to poison S-E Asia,” makes it clear that he considered the weapons development to be necessary because of the menace of Asiatic population growth.
I’m getting the idea of preemption from the phrase “threatened invasion.” However, in 1998 he wrote something slightly different, according to the Age.
If anything, it is even more chilling that Burnet discouraged the idea that a biological attack would be a means of actually winning in a conflict. Rather, he encouraged the development of such a weapon in order to exterminate the defeated enemy and take all his land and resources:
The main strategic use of biological warfare may well be to administer the coup de grace to a virtually defeated enemy and compel surrender in the same way that the atomic bomb served in 1945. Its use has the tremendous advantage of not destroying the enemy’s industrial potential which can then be taken over intact. Overt biological warfare might be used to enforce surrender by psychological rather than direct destructive measures.
Perhaps someone can try to exonerate Burnet for claiming that introducing fatal diseases into Southeast Asia and destroying their food crops is merely a “psychological” form of warfare. But I don’t see it. You defeat them in battle, then you unloose fatal diseases (or food-destroying ones) and then take over the unmanned industry. I guess that would be a psychological problem for the survivors, but this proposal can hardly be reduced to psychological warfare.
Does this sound merely like psychological devastation to you?
After visiting the UK in 1950 and examining the British chemical and biological warfare research effort, Sir Macfarlane told the committee that the initiation of epidemics among enemy populations had usually been discarded as a means of waging war because it was likely to rebound on the user.
In a country of low sanitation the introduction of an exotic intestinal pathogen, e.g. by water contamination, might initiate widespread dissemination… Introduction of yellow fever into a country with appropriate mosquito vectors might build up into a disabling epidemic before control measures were established.
So what is my point?
The start date for these secret reports is 1947. We have just won a war against the Nazis and have treated them as some sort of unique eugenicist evil. Was it? Burnet grew up with the century and saw a tide of eugenicist literature. Did that all suddenly vanish into smoke with the embarrassment of Hitler?
One excerpt among many of this study performed under the direction of Henry Kissinger:
Bilateral population assistance is the largest and most invisible “instrument” for carrying out U.S. policy in this area. Other instruments include: support for and coordination with population programs of multilateral organizations and voluntary agencies; encouragement of multilateral country consortia and consultative groups to emphasize family planning in reviews of overall recipient progress and aid requests; and formal and informal presentation of views at international gatherings, such as food and population conferences. Specific country strategies must be worked out for each of the highest priority countries, and for the lower priority ones. These strategies will take account of such factors as: national attitudes and sensitivities on family planning; which “instruments” will be most acceptable, opportunities for effective use of assistance; and need of external capital or operating assistance.
For example, in Mexico our strategy would focus on working primarily through private agencies and multilateral organizations to encourage more government attention to the need for control of population growth; in Bangladesh we might provide large-scale technical and financial assistance, depending on the soundness of specific program requests; in Indonesia we would respond to assistance requests but would seek to have Indonesia meet as much of program costs from its own resources (i.e. surplus oil earnings) as possible. In general we would not provide large-scale bilateral assistance in the more developed LDCs, such as Brazil or Mexico. Although these countries are in the top priority list our approach must take account of the fact that their problems relate often to government policies and decisions and not to larger scale need for concessional assistance.
Within the overall array of U.S. foreign assistance programs, preferential treatment in allocation of funds and manpower should be given to cost-effective programs to reduce population growth; including both family planning activities and supportive activities in other sectors.
While some have argued for use of explicit “leverage” to “force” better population programs on LDC governments, there are several practical constraints on our efforts to achieve program improvements. Attempts to use “leverage” for far less sensitive issues have generally caused political frictions and often backfired. Successful family planning requires strong local dedication and commitment that cannot over the long run be enforced from the outside. There is also the danger that some LDC leaders will see developed country pressures for family planning as a form of economic or racial imperialism; this could well create a serious backlash.
Short of “leverage”, there are many opportunities, bilaterally and multilaterally, for U.S. representations to discuss and urge the need for stronger family planning programs. There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relationships, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.
Perhaps it is just a coincidence that the thirteen countries targeted in the report aren’t as white as the US or Australia’s majorities. But I doubt it. (Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria; India, Pakistan, Bangladesh; ndonesia, Thailand, the Philippines; Turkey; Mexico, Brazil and Colombia).
So lets jump ahead a bit. Consider this report from the Globe and Mail:
A few weeks after giving birth to a baby boy by Caesarian section, Hilma Nendongo went back to hospital to have the stitches removed. A nurse glanced at her medical record and casually asked her a horrifying question.
“Oh,” the nurse said, “did they tell you that you had been sterilized.
Ms. Nendongo, a 30-year-old villager from northern Namibia who barely spoke English, tore through her personal health card, looking for a clue to what had been done to her in the state hospital.
She couldn’t read any of the doctor’s scrawled handwriting, except for the word “stop” and the word “closed.” She later discovered the sickening truth: this was a common code for a tubal ligation, the most frequent form of sterilization in Namibia.
She suddenly remembered that the hospital staff had told her to sign some papers as she entered the operating room for her C-section. Nobody had explained the papers.
Oh, did they tell you that they sterilized you? We are such heroes to ourselves, aren’t we? We go help the half-humans so it is only right that we determine their fertility without bothering to even inform them, let alone ask.
[Note to the the outraged, ignorant: the above reference to “half-humans” was sarcasm. That is how we are treating them when we do this.]
By the way, what happens when the UN and other “multilaterals” promote “voluntary” birth control in countries without Western-style freedoms? Nothing good:
“The police said to my husband ‘if she doesn’t get sterilised, the police will arrest you right now and you will be sterilised instead… they threw me on the trolley and tied me up” Rudesinda Quillawamang.
When Fujimori launched a massive family planning campaign in the mid-nineties it was widely hailed and supported by the United Nations and international aid agencies alike. His aim, he said, was to liberate men and women from the burden of poverty and large families. Now, he’s facing genocide charges. During the Fujimori regime, the current government says, over 300,000 men and women were sterilised against their will.
Insight News Television investigates forced sterilisations in Peru. We talk to victims, health workers and others involved, and uncover a dark military plan of social engineering called ‘Plan Verde.’
In the Andes we meet Rudesinda, a young Quetchua Indian woman. She says she was dragged to the operating theatre and forcibly sterilised. And it wasn’t just the countryside where poor people were targeted.
Mary Elena says she was 17 when she went into a Lima hospital for a caesarean. After the birth of her son she found out that doctors had sterilised her. When her husband discovered that she was now infertile, he left her. ‘In this hospital they ruined my life, she says. ‘I think the government wanted to get rid of poor people like me.’
We obtain a full, unpublished, government report about the scandal. The report exposes a sinister military plan, called Plan Verde, to exterminate entire social groups such as the poor and criminals. The military and intelligence sources in the report are all anonymous, but we track down one source. This former military officer details how the military was indeed deployed to sterilise people.
Finally, we question one of the doctors responsible for the sterilisations. Dr Washington is now running for mayor in Anta. Despite the evidence against him, he’s in comfortable denial. ‘Many women are very happy for what was done to them. They have less children, definitely, but they are happy.“
Yes, if they aren’t threatening us with their breeding then they must be happy. We were being totally altruistic by sterilizing them against their will. Here is another article on the same subject.
Supposedly, in any internet debate, the first person to to call the other a Nazi is a loser. But I’ve just sampled a few things out of many. We live in a Nazi world, in denial for the moment.
Of course, unlike the crude racism of the Nazis, I think the class warfare of US eugenics is not so blunt. I’m sure there is a top one percent of almost every population that might be found worthy of US intellectuals. Maybe more. But it is still anti-human, anti-Christian, and a “hidden” evil that is all too obvious.