Dear Reader,
Because I am so disappointed that more people don’t take the time to write pleasant and inspiring articles about people rather than write articles showing the darkness and despair within humanity, I am going to tell you in this very public format about Dr. Ken Alibek, a man who I am very honored and privileged to call mentor and friend. If you want to know the truth about this man, keep reading.
Since I mentioned my lack of appreciation for articles that just show the darkness and despair within humanity, I would first like to briefly address David Willman’s July 1, 2007 article about Dr. Alibek. Since I am quite familiar with most everything Mr. Willman described, it made me absolutely furious to see such a biased article full of “inaccuracies” (to use a more polite term). Though I would dearly love to discredit the author and the newspaper, I won’t. I won’t engage the author and the newspaper simply because Dr. Alibek asked me to join him in forgiving them for printing such a biased story full of “inaccuracies” and I agreed to try. It will be exceedingly difficult for me to forgive them as I lack the incredible strength of character required to forgive such a heinous crime. Dr. Alibek does not suffer from the same insufficiency of character…he has already forgiven them.
My husband and I have had the pleasure of knowing this man for three years and we both know him to be an extraordinary individual possessing many fine qualities not apparent to people distracted by his previous work for the former Soviet Army. In fact, I’m confident I know him rather well and that his humility is going to keep him from enjoying this exposition should he ever learn of its existence. Yet I will take the chance of incurring his displeasure in order to tell you about him, someone who is very special in this world. I will preface the rest of my comments by offering forgiveness at this time to those who respond negatively to this posting and just extend my apologies to them as they haven’t had the opportunity my husband and I have had to know such a fine individual.
Yes, Dr. Alibek was highly skilled at making biological weapons for the former Soviet Union but what does that really mean?
1. People gasp when they hear the words chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons but why do they respond that way? It is because they are conditioned to respond that way to weapons of mass casualty or weapons of mass destruction. My perspective is a little different as I view them less passionately along with all of the other weapons man has created to take the life of an adversary…they are all unfortunate innovations. Though I don’t like them, I understand that they are just natural progressions in the development of more effective weapons for war and it makes no sense to vilify their developers any more than the developers of any other weapon. I don’t see the criticisms of those people who invented tanks, grenades, or machine guns. An easy example would be the M249 Light Machine Gun used by troops in our military as it can fire up to 1000 rounds per minute. I have no idea who invented it probably because a weapon with the potential to kill 1000 adversaries/minute doesn’t make the headlines yet its destructive power is obvious.
2. People don’t understand that the process to manufacture biological weapons is very similar to the process to manufacture biopharmaceuticals (but with some important differences). To manufacture biological weapons requires great expertise in biotechnology that can be applied to a variety of products. Dr. Alibek made major improvements to mass production capabilities in the biotechnology field but instead of focusing on what innovative knowledge he has to offer our biotech industry, people focus just on the one product that was of the greatest interest to the former Soviet government, a government at war, and forget that he also produced sera, antibiotics, vaccines, and interferon. He performed a vast amount of work to improve the health of people during those times and he does an unbelievable amount of work to improve the health and welfare of people now. “Dr. Ken Alibek producing biopharmaceuticals that could save the lives of millions of sick children” isn’t nearly as attractive a headline to the masses as “Selling the Threat of Bioterrorism” so you will never see it published anywhere…yet it is the truth. Regardless, he works twice as hard as men half his age in order to ease the suffering of the world’s people. He is a physician not only by training but also by nature.
Instead of discussing events at George Mason University that have been called into question, I will direct you to the information posted online by Ann Workman and ask you to decide for yourself if there is more to the story than what Mr. Willman published. Though I don’t like the use of the term “fascinating”, the documents provided are genuine though I know the information that had the most potential to damage the reputation of the University was removed before posting. Regardless, I believe the documents demonstrate the extreme integrity and motivations of Dr. Ken Alibek and give the reader some insights into the man himself.
You have very patiently waited for me to tell you about Ken Alibek, the man. “What is he like?” is a very common question asked of me and my husband and I will tell you what I tell everyone. First, Dr. Alibek really isn’t going to like that I do this for you because he is a very humble man but I know that he will forgive me.
In addition to his great capacity for forgiveness, the man truly is brilliant and innovative. One misconception I want to clear up right now is about whether or not ironing letters can kill anthrax (B. anthracis) spores. This thoughtful suggestion to people who were really panicked about the possibility of receiving a contaminated letter was discredited, but later Marc Roberge (a high school senior and son of a prominent CDC scientist) conducted an experiment that supported Dr. Alibek’s statement. Mr. Roberge’s experiment and results were to be published in a peer reviewed journal but I haven’t looked for the publication.
I already mentioned throughout this letter that Dr. Alibek is brilliant, innovative, humble, forgiving, strong, and hardworking. He is also very kind, generous, and thoughtful but as the saying goes - do not mistake his kindness for weakness. He is a consummate professional and a highly skilled businessman with noble intentions. He is absolutely dedicated to helping other people…a genuine philanthropist. Additionally, people who truly know him will tell you that he is a man of high integrity as well as a loyal and trustworthy friend. My husband and I are truly fortunate and proud to have him in our lives.
Dr. Debra Anderson
debra51704@yahoo.com
Debra,
My own sense of Ken, from following the heated debate since 2002 about the method of weaponization and the detection of silica, is that he has been generous, direct and what he has said squares with reality. The vitriol that arose, IMO, was due to the conflict between the detection of silica by Armed Force Institute of Pathology (”AFIP”), which found it a major component, and the report by Dr.Alibek and Dr.Meselson that they could not see it on the SEMS images they were shown. The two empirical observations, however, are in fact reconcilable as noted in the post above. Moreover, while some argued that the product was super-sophisticated, it was easier to achieve a trillion spore concentration in a small scale production than in industrial production (through repeated centrifugation). Bottom-line: Dr. Alibek was correct in his expert assessment of the technical characteristics of the anthrax and he never sounded a false note. See, for example, his online chat sponsored by the Washington Post. His argument merely has been that it is possible to achieve a sophisticated product using a relatively simple method. Zawahiri had a scientist, Rauf Ahmad, learning some tricks of weaponization from a scientist in connection with his attending conferences sponsored by the UK biodefense establishment in 1999 and 2000. See correspondence between Rauf Ahmad and Zawahiri. The name of the scientist consulted has been blacked out but the name was not anyone associated at GMU. The FBI has known the name since late 2001.
Dr. Alibek’s views were shared by Dr. William Patrick, who came to consult for the FBI, showing you that they seem to credit the view.
The article by FBI scientist Beecher, although the two sentences have been overinterpreted, also tends to support Ken’s characterization.
Ken’s main recommendation as to anthrax defense is to more widely distribute the already existing antibiotic stockpiles so as to permit more speedy distribution. See interview of Ken by Aton Edwards on YouTube. That seems very reasonable.
Debra,
My own sense of Ken, from following the heated debate since 2002 about the method of weaponization and the detection of silica, is that he has been generous, direct and what he has said squares with reality. The vitriol that arose, IMO, was due to the conflict between the detection of silica by Armed Force Institute of Pathology (”AFIP”), which found it a major component, and the report by Dr.Alibek and Dr.Meselson that they could not see it on the SEMS images they were shown. The two empirical observations, however, are in fact reconcilable as noted in the post above. Moreover, while some argued that the product was super-sophisticated, it was easier to achieve a trillion spore concentration in a small scale production than in industrial production (through repeated centrifugation). Bottom-line: Dr. Alibek was correct in his expert assessment of the technical characteristics of the anthrax and he never sounded a false note. See, for example, his online chat sponsored by the Washington Post. His argument merely has been that it is possible to achieve a sophisticated product using a relatively simple method. Zawahiri had a scientist, Rauf Ahmad, learning some tricks of weaponization from a scientist in connection with his attending conferences sponsored by the UK biodefense establishment in 1999 and 2000. See correspondence between Rauf Ahmad and Zawahiri. The name of the scientist consulted has been blacked out but the name was not anyone associated at GMU. The FBI has known the name since late 2001.
Dr. Alibek’s views were shared by Dr. William Patrick, who came to consult for the FBI, showing you that they seem to credit the view.
The article by FBI scientist Beecher, although the two sentences have been overinterpreted, also tends to support Ken’s characterization.
Ken’s main recommendation as to anthrax defense is to more widely distribute the already existing antibiotic stockpiles so as to permit more speedy distribution. See interview of Ken by Aton Edwards on YouTube. That seems very reasonable.
Richard Ebright’s views are interesting.
In an article supportive of Dr. Alibek’s technical claims about recombinant technology, Mark Williams interviewed scientists Popov, Meselson, Ebright and others. The article was “The Knowledge: Biotechnology’s advance could give malefactors the ability to manipulate life processes — and even affect human behavior” in The MIT Technology Review (March/April 2006). The article is based on interviews with Sergei Popov (an expert at GMU who had worked as a Russian bioweaponeer), University of Maryland researcher Milton Leitenberg, Harvard’s Matthew Meselson, Rutger’s Richard Ebright and others.
An excerpt:
“After last year’s bioterrorism conference in DC, I called on Richard Ebright, whose Rutgers laboratory researches transcription initiation (the first step in gene expression), to hear why he so opposes the biodefense boom (in its current form) and why he doesn’t worry about terrorists’ synthesizing biological weapons.”
‘There are now more than 300 U.S. institutions with access to live bioweapons agents and 16,500 individuals approved to handle them,” Ebright told me. While all of those people have undergone some form of background check — to verify, for instance, that they aren’t named on a terrorist watch list and aren’t illegal aliens — it’s also true, Ebright noted, that ‘Mohammed Atta would have passed those tests without difficulty.’ “
***
‘That’s the most significant concern,’ Ebright agreed. ‘If al-Qaeda wished to carry out a bioweapons attack in the U.S., their simplest means of acquiring access to the materials and the knowledge would be to send individuals to train within programs involved in biodefense research.’ Ebright paused. ‘And today, every university and corporate press office is trumpeting its success in securing research funding as part of this biodefense expansion, describing exactly what’s available and where.’”
In approaching the Amerithrax true crime problem, the analytical problem is that researchers tend only to focus on their narrow field. So an analyst focused on Al Qaeda may not know anything about US biodefense programs — an analyst knowledgeable about antibiotic or vaccine research may not know anything about Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The scientist may not care to know even though working in the area of biodefense. To knowledgeably address the issue of infiltration and the use of universities and charities as cover — which the documentary evidence shows Zawahiri planned to do and did in his anthrax weaponization program — requires a willingness to become knowledgeable and investigate the different substantive areas.
Are you the Debra Anderson who contributed to Saxton’s campaign along with Ken Alibek?
SAXTON, H. J (R)
Contributions for House of Reps
Campaigns: All Office: House of Reps
State: NJ
District: 3
Next Campaign: 2008
Alibek, Kenneth
Anderson, Debra