Anthrax Mailings: Connecting the Dots [to al-Qaeda]

PHXnews.com ^ | 18 Jan. 2004 | Ross E. Getman

[EdLake]

It's funny how you are willing to use CDC data when it suits you, and yet you are unwilling to accept their OFFICIAL conclusion that Bob Stevens was infected from a letter on Septmeber 19.

Unlike you, I don't depend upon other people to do my thinking for me.

The data shows that the J-Lo letter could not have contained anthrax. Look at the floor charts again. There was very little anthrax around the area where the J-Lo letter was opened and examined. Stephanie Dailey tested positive for exposure to anthrax and she was on vacation when the J-Lo letter arrived. The J-Lo letter was passed around to several people besides Bob Stevens, yet none of the others tested positive for exposure.

If the data says one thing and if some official says another, I'll believe the data.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

"The J-Lo letter was passed around to several people besides Bob Stevens, yet none of the others tested positive for exposure."

What you fail to add here is that nasal swabs are notoriously unreliable - the fact that others tested negative for nasal swabs is almost meaningless. A positive nasal swab is an indicator of exposure, but a negative does NOT mean there was no exposure.

Once again, you ignore the FACTS, and you present opinion as fact. You are forced to do this because your arguments are all political, and you don't consider ALL the FACTS.

[TrebleRebel]

Go on Ed, just tell us, who is more credible. Meselson? Or AFIP Detrick and EPA?

Remember, Meselson only saw a few SEMs. Meselson has been WRONG about EVERY thing has ever claimed about bioweapons, from Sverdlovsk to Yellow Rain.

AFIP, Detrick and EPA had FULL access to ALL the DATA.

Who's more credible? Come on Ed, you can say it. You're his number one fan, you can do it.

[EdLake]

What you fail to add here is that nasal swabs are notoriously unreliable - the fact that others tested negative for nasal swabs is almost meaningless. A positive nasal swab is an indicator of exposure, but a negative does NOT mean there was no exposure.

I was just looking at the evidence. You are saying the evidence means nothing because it doesn't fit your theory.

You say you are looking at all the evidence but you ignore the fact that the third floor where the J-Lo letter was opened and examined has less contamination than both of the other floors in the building. How do you twist the facts to explain that?

Ed

[TrebleRebel]

"I was just looking at the evidence."

I've got news for you - that is not "evidence". Negative results are meaningless. You may call it "evidence" - it is not.

Once again you are manufaturing evidence to achieve a political goal.

You need to look at ALL the FACTS.

Negative nasal swabs do NOT indicate no exposure - FACT.

I realize it's difficult for you to grasp that.

[TrebleRebel]

Who's more credible? Come on Ed, you can say it. You're his number one fan, you can do it.

Just tell us you think Mesleson is more credible, given all the FACTS I have stated above.

[TrebleRebel]

I just read the kind letter Mesleson wrote to you a while back, he says:

"You should insist on official confirmation of any claims of additives before believing there are any in the Daschle/ Leahy material."

It seems since then that we HAVE had official confirmation of additives. I guess the matter is now closed.

The question is - why aren't you following Meselson's original advice? You got the official confirmation. Could it be that you just DON'T LIKE the official confirmation?

[EdLake]

I've got news for you - that is not "evidence". Negative results are meaningless. You may call it "evidence" - it is not.

Once again you are manufaturing evidence to achieve a political goal.

Just to make certain I understand you correctly, let's go over this again.

Are you saying that it means nothing that the third floor - where the J-Lo letter was opened and passed around - has less contamination than any other floor in the AMI building? You still believe the J-Lo letter contained the anthrax?

And you are also saying that it means nothing that area around Stephanie Dailey's desk on the first floor is the most contaminated area in the building. And you're saying that and the fact that she tested positive for exposure to anthrax mean nothing.

If such tests mean nothing, why did the CDC make the tests?

And if the CDC did the tests and produced the charts, why do you accuse me of "manufacturing evidence"? Shouldn't you be accusing the CDC of "manufacturing evidence"?

I think we just need to hear you explain why the area where the J-Lo letter was opened and passed around shows almost no sign of anthrax. And why the area where the other letter was opened shows very high contamination from anthrax. If we can get your explanation on that, then we'll all understand your point of view and that will bring this discussion to an end.

We can all then just have a big laugh and move on.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

"And you're saying that and the fact that she tested positive for exposure to anthrax mean nothing."

You are putting words in my mouth - because you are getting desperate since you are losing the debate. I already stated that a postive nasal swab was evidence. Obviously it means that person was exposed. It's you that is claiming that a negative nasal swab is evidence as well!

That is hilarious, and I'm almost falling off my chair laughing at your shallow understanding of this matter.

You are claiming that the fact that nobody else arond Stevens tested positive for a nasal swab then it must mean something. And yet it has been proven that exposure to anthrax hardly ever gives rise to positive nasal swabs.

Thus you TOTALLY manufacture "evidence" - evidence which is simply meaningless and does not exist.

[TrebleRebel]

"I think we just need to hear you explain why the area where the J-Lo letter was opened and passed around shows almost no sign of anthrax. And why the area where the other letter was opened shows very high contamination from anthrax. If we can get your explanation on that, then we'll all understand your point of view and that will bring this discussion to an end."

The computer where Stevens was ACTUALLY SEEN opening the September 19 letter above tested positive! But to you, that means nothing, since your warped political agenda can't allow you even to consider that the Septemebr 19 letter had anthrax.

Do you know what an aerosol is? It's a bunch of particles floating around the air. Do you know what hot air does? You should - you're full of it.

Hint - It rises!

Now - look for where most of the anthrax ended up.

Also, you haven't got a clue in what order the cleaning was done. For all you know they vaccumed the first floor first then emptied their bags in the 3rd floor.

As usual, you are TOTALLY SPECULATING and presenting your TOTAL SPECULATION as FACT.

[EdLake]

I already stated that a postive nasal swab was evidence.

Okay. So, you accept Stephanie Dailey's positive test as evidence. But she was on vacation for two weeks - from September 8 through September 23 - and that includes the date that the J-Lo letter was opened and passed around on the third floor. How did she get exposed? And how do you explain all the positive test results around her desk if the J-Lo letter contained the anthrax?

Thus you TOTALLY manufacture "evidence" - evidence which is simply meaningless and does not exist.

So, does that mean you are not going to try to explain why the third floor is the least contaminated floor in the building?

Or are you saying that negative results on that floor could actually be positive results because negative results have no meaning?

We just need to hear your explanation of why the area where the J-Lo letter was opened and examined is so free of contamination. That's all.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[EdLake]

The computer where Stevens was ACTUALLY SEEN opening the September 19 letter above tested positive!

Yes, and so did nearly a hundred other places in the building. Were anthrax letters also opened in those other places? Or does the finding of a single spore or two mean nothing by itself?

The building was thoroughly contaminated. Finding a single spore or two in any specific place means little. It's where the spores were concentrated that means something.

look for where most of the anthrax ended up.

The CDC charts show where most of the anthrax ended up - on the first floor around Stephanie Dailey's desk. And that is the result of positive test results, which you say qualify as "evidence".

For all you know they vaccumed the first floor first then emptied their bags in the 3rd floor.

As usual, you are TOTALLY SPECULATING

You suggest that they may have vacuumed the first floor and emptied the bags on the third floor? Interesting. And that wouldn't be considered "speculation"? But how would that explain the fact that the first floor remained the most contaminated floor and the third floor remained the least contaminated floor?

[EdLake]

Do you know what an aerosol is? It's a bunch of particles floating around the air. Do you know what hot air does? You should - you're full of it.

Hint - It rises!

That's an interesting explanation of physics. So, you think that would mean that all the spores would be on the ceiling instead of the floor? Interesting.

According to Graysmith's book, the air conditioning vents were relatively free of anthrax. If spores act the way you suggest, shouldn't they have been filled with anthrax?

Have you forgotten that, according to the FBI, when Stephanie Dailey opened the anthrax letter she contaminated the copy paper near her desk, and the rest of the building was contaminated by people taking the copy paper to the many copy machines around the building. Are you saying that the FBI was wrong about that? I am. But I'm wondering if you are saying so, too.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[EdLake]

it has been proven that exposure to anthrax hardly ever gives rise to positive nasal swabs

Can you provide a source for this observation?

I'm curious how exposures can me measured if negative results don't prove negative exposure.

Ed

[EdLake]

It's shut down time for me. I'll check back tomorrow to see if you've come up with an explanation for why there was so little contamination on the third floor where the J-Lo letter was opened and so much around Stephanie Dailey's desk on the first floor.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

"And how do you explain all the positive test results around her desk if the J-Lo letter contained the anthrax?"

Where did I say the September 25 letter DIDN'T contain anthrax? On the contrary, I agree with the CDC official conclusions - there were TWO anthrax letters sent to AMI, one mailed to the Enquirer, and one mailed to Sun.

I don't have a problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with the Sptember 19 letter containing anthrax - which it clearly did. It's you that has a problem with that - but your problem with that has nothing whatsover to do with facts - and everything to do with politics.

You CAN'T accept that a JLo letter had anthrax - simply because you can't easily blame that on your drunken Milwaukee bowler or his cohorts.

You really ought to try looking at ALL the FACTS, instead of continually wearing your POLITICAL blinkers.

[TrebleRebel]

"Can you provide a source for this observation?"

http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/2002/p02r4-15a.htm

"Early in the anthrax outbreak, nasal swabs were being used as an indicator of human exposure to aerosolized anthrax spores. While the intent was right, it became clear quickly that this methodology was highly flawed and was not a reliable predictor of exposure. Several of the individuals that died from inhalation anthrax had negative nasal swabs. The CDC readily acknowledged that a negative nasal swab did not mean that a person was not exposed."

It seems you have difficulty understanding this concept. Read the article I have linked to CAREFULLY!

It means that whilst positive nasal swab tests ARE a reliable indicator of exposure, negative tests ARE NOT a reliable indicator of NO exposure.

Habe you got it now? Or will it never sink in?

[TrebleRebel]

"You suggest that they may have vacuumed the first floor and emptied the bags on the third floor? Interesting. And that wouldn't be considered "speculation"? "

It's not speculation - it's simply a guess - just as they vaccumed the third floor first and changed bags on the first floor is another guess and an equally valid one.

The point is there are too many unknowns for you to reach the absurd conclusions you are reaching. You are grasping at conclsions where in reality you have absoltely no idea what events such as cleaning may have done to influence the data.

The data that we DO know is that Bob Stevens held a letter with a powder in it up close to his face on September 19. The color of that powder was consistent with anthrax (it wasn't white so it wasn't talcum powder). That's probably the first time in his twenty years at AMI that he ever held a letter containing powder up close to his face. He contracted anthrax 6 days later (although you prefer a later date by twisting the facts). Anthrax was detected in the immediate area around this - including ON THE COMPUTER KEYBOARD he was holding it above.

Only someone who is totally out of their mind or on drugs would fail to see the connection between the September 19 letter and Bob Stevens' death.

That means if you're not presently on drugs it is fair to conclude that you are out of your mind.

[TrebleRebel]

Are you still not prepared to tell us why you aren't following Meselson's advice? Here's what he wrote in his personal letter to you:

"You should insist on official confirmation of any claims of additives before believing there are any in the Daschle/ Leahy material."


Well, you got the official confirmation of the additives. From MULTIPLE sources actually - you can read all their names, titles and affiliations in Gary Matsumoto's Science article.

What's wrong Ed? Cat got your tongue? Even you can't squirm out of this one with another multiple dose of your bullshit piled thicker and deeper?

[EdLake]

Okay, since this should be message #200, I'll try to answer all three of your messages at once. Maybe we can keep this from going into another page.

Where did I say the September 25 letter DIDN'T contain anthrax? On the contrary, I agree with the CDC official conclusions - there were TWO anthrax letters sent to AMI, one mailed to the Enquirer, and one mailed to Sun.

Okay. That just leaves the question of why all the evidence indicates that the J-Lo letter did not contain anthrax. No significant amount of anthrax was detected in the area where the letters was opened. None of the other people who opened and examined the J-Lo letter came down with anthrax.

"Early in the anthrax outbreak, nasal swabs were being used as an indicator of human exposure to aerosolized anthrax spores. While the intent was right, it became clear quickly that this methodology was highly flawed and was not a reliable predictor of exposure. Several of the individuals that died from inhalation anthrax had negative nasal swabs. The CDC readily acknowledged that a negative nasal swab did not mean that a person was not exposed."

It seems you have difficulty understanding this concept. Read the article I have linked to CAREFULLY!

It means that whilst positive nasal swab tests ARE a reliable indicator of exposure, negative tests ARE NOT a reliable indicator of NO exposure.

Okay. No problem. I suppose it is theoretically possible that everyone who examined the J-Lo letter could have had negative test results on their nasal swabs. But we still have the matter of no one else who examined the J-Lo letter coming down with anthrax. And, of course, the matter of very little anthrax being in the area where the J-Lo letter was opened and passed around. In the area where the actual anthrax letter was opened and then tossed into a waste basket without being passed around the entire area is very contaminated.

Are you still not prepared to tell us why you aren't following Meselson's advice? Here's what he wrote in his personal letter to you:

"You should insist on official confirmation of any claims of additives before believing there are any in the Daschle/ Leahy material."

If there is some "official confirmation" of additives being in the Daschle anthrax I haven't seen it. Are you referring to the AFIP article? It does NOT mention "additives" any more than it mentions "coatings". It merely says:

AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica.

Professor Meselson was referring to that fact when he wrote me. So, I'm still waiting for "official confirmation" of an additive. The AFIP article doesn't mention an additive, and it's been stated by bioweapons experts that the silica could have come from some drying method or from some aspect of the growth medium, the growth environment, etc. So, we don't know the source of the silica.

The fact that people read inaccurate reports in the newspapers that the newspapers and believed those reports is not "official confirmation". It is rumor.

No one who has actually SEEN the anthrax has said that there were additives or that the spores were coated. Everything about "additives" and "coatings" on the Daschle anthrax is just rumor and speculation.

All three messages answered. Time to move on.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com