Posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook
Ed, I asked Dr. Beecher for a copy of the article so I could distribute the two sentences and corroborate them or debunk them, explore his source for the statement etc. It prompted Kay Mereish’s letter based on the presentation by Dorothy Small who actually examined the anthrax for the FBI.
So now let me pass on to you a key sentence from this article: “In the anthrax attack of 2001, some of the material was believed to be in a “fluidized” form (defined here as having fumed silica added).”
But I really do think you should be at least doing library research if you are going to presume to address the issue.
Development of an Aerosol System for Uniformly Depositing Bacillus Anthracis Spore Particles on …
PA Baron - Aerosol Science and Technology, 2008
Re: the Simmering Frog
From the new novel about Ayman :
“He remembered a story his father had told him one day in their home on the poor side of Maadi, on the banks of the Nile. His mother’s family discussed radical politics, and was active in the revolutionary changes taking place in secular Egypt. He had never forgotten the day at the dinner table when his father had asked him if he knew how to cook a frog. Ayman was only 11 at the time and had no answer. Without even interrupting his eating the dessert Ayman’s mother had prepared, his father had coached, “You place him in a pan of cold water on the stove, then you turn on the heat. By the time the water is hot enough that the frog knows it is in danger, it is too weak and dulled by the heat to leap out.”
Ed,
If you ever decide to reorient your webpage to an analysis of the anthrax attacks and away from the civil suits brought by Steve Hatfill, here is a well-done webpage that provides background on the scientist whose lawyer the DOJ has considered an anthrax weapons suspect. As I recall, it was created by Ali’s brother.
TrebleRebel and Michele,
Remember Ed’s suggestion that the Goldman Sachs letters were similar to the pipe bombs in which a smiley face was drawn? And I pooh-poohed the idea because there were too many Goldman Sachs letters clustered in the NYC area? Well, here is the news of the Smiley Face Theory related to a serial killer loose in Wisconsin.
Updated: 4/28/2008 11:47:01 PM
http://www.leadertelegram.com/story-news.asp?id=BGFQ1HK3CE9
NYC detectives think drownings could be the work of serial killers
By Christena T. O’Brien
The pair said they found a smiley face painted somewhere at crime scenes in Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to the ABC news account. Even though the color of paint used and the size of the faces varied, they are convinced it “is a sick signature claiming responsibility for the homicide.”
***
The pair said they found a smiley face painted somewhere at crime scenes in Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to the ABC news account. Even though the color of paint used and the size of the faces varied, they are convinced it “is a sick signature claiming responsibility for the homicide.”
***
Gavrilos, in Eau Claire Monday to present “Putting a Face on Alcohol-Related Deaths,” said he was concerned the new theory would only dredge up painful emotions***
More on the Smiley Face Wisconsin serial killer
http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4742858&page=1
You’re wasting your time talking to Ed about coated anthrax spores. He still believes what Alibek told him - that there is “no principle” to coating.
Ed even believes all the coated spores shown in “Microbial Forensics” are some stunt set up to demonstrate how spores are NOT weaponized ;))))
Meanwhile - the scientific community reads Beecher’s Meselson-inspired paper, laughs quietly to themselves, and continues to study the aerosol properties on silica COATED spores. Some of the samples in the study you cite are 40 years old - and they still have robust silica COATINGS.
TrebleRebel,
From the article -
“In this process the material passed through a series of stages separated by increasingly finer mesh screens.”
That is what I am describing when I use the phrase sequential filtration.
Perhaps Ed could upload the picture of a particle presumed to be a single BG spore coated with fumed silica in 7A. TrebleRebel, as you know, in the study, many particles similar to this were observed while no single spores without the silica were observed. Agglomerated spores with only a light coating of silica were readily observed as indicated by Figure 7b.
Serge, a key colleague of Ken and Charles, tells me the silica in the anthrax mailings was used with a “delicate touch.”
Ed,
I also am curious how you think your webpage discussion squares with the revised edition of Borden Institute’s latest edition of Medical Aspects of Biological Warfare.
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13639_1-9930431-42.html
You mean like what the Editor of Science Magazine, Don Kennedy, wrote me back in January of 2006? He wrote this about Gary Matsumoto's article:
That was a News article; it didn't report original research, and the authors of News articles report views of the science as they have found it following investigation. This often sparks disagreements.
So, the article printed in Science magazine was a "News article" and not a science article? And "it didn't report original research"?
Does that mean the editor of Science magazine considers it to be "discredited?"
No, as I said - discredited is when the editor publicly acknowledges that a statement was there that should NOT have passed peer review. And when the article is rebutted in the same journal by another scientist who requests specific new information to be published - and the original author makes no response - THAT is discredited.
Of course when other authors quote and then ignore the conclusions of the author - as has now been done by the CDC/Army authors of the Aerosol Scince paper - that’s also a sure sign that a paper has been discredited.
Maybe Beecher will publish these pure spore SEM images - that is - if he still holds a job in the FBI labs.
Okay. Well the debate over “principles of coating” and silica is settled by the article published by the Dugway authors. They are the anthrax weaponization experts. “The FBI has no in-house experts on anthrax weaponization. We knew Ed was just making it up because he never cited the aerosol literature on silica coating of anthrax spores.
But I find even broader contradiction of various of Ed’s claims in the lucid discussion by USAMRIID’s leading anthrax scientist A.M. Friedlander and his colleagues in the revised treatise I mention. It mentions the unsolved anthrax mailings in the foreword’s first sentence and yet Ed never makes any attempt to correct his webpage or acquire relevant sources. Ed, local public libraries pretty much will get anything you want by interlibrary loan. All free (or at least you can set that condition).
For example, he doesn’t correct his “accomplices” points or address Dillon’s theory and instead misleads the gullible reader.
I haven't yet read the article, but it can't contain much of importance if you have to dig through it to find words and parts of sentences you can use to fit your beiefs.
I see an abstract of the article HERE.
The title of the article says it's about DEPOSITING spore particles evenly on a surface so information can be developed on how to do valid samplings. It's not an article about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
In fact, the abstract says it's about correcting problems with sampling methods used back in 2001:
After the anthrax incidents in October 2001, several techniques used for sampling surfaces for biological agents were found to be inadequately validated
So, it's pointing out MORE mistakes made back then.
The abstract also mentions coatings:
The flow-enhanced powder mixture appeared to affect the spores' ability to grow on the agar medium. Three ways of analyzing the agar plates were used to evaluate the effect of spore coatings on viability and to differentiate between number of spore-containing particles and the number of spores.
That seems to suggest that they found that coatings on spores HURT the spores' ability to germinate. In other words, coatings make the powder less effective.
I'll certainly look for a copy of the article. It MIGHT contain something of interest.
Until then, I suppose I'll just have to live with you claiming you have found some words and parts of sentences that validate your beliefs.
If the spores were hampered in germinating by the silica coatings it was a small effect. The paper only speculates that this may have increased the time a large colony took to grew - and even then only slightly.
The thrust of the paper is that EVERY sample they worked up used a silica COATING. The authors stated that the study was intended to simulate the biowarfare agent used in the 2001 attacks. Guess they know something Beecher and Meselson don’t.
The dictionary definition of "discredit" is:
Discredit, 1. to disbelieve. 2. to cast doubt on. 3. to damage the reputation of; disgrace.
So, "discredit" means to disbelieve. It doesn't mean to disprove.
By that definition, I guess it can be argued that some people disbelieved the article and wanted more proof.
But, obviously, the article can be TOTALLY TRUE and still be disbelieved by people who prefer to believe in conspiracy theories.
Actually it’s MUCH more somple than that. When you publish statements in peer reviewed science journals you are required to provide data to back them up. No data = discredited. The peer review process failed here - but that shouldn’t surprise us when we know the identity of the peer reviewer.
Actually it’s MUCH more simple than that. When you publish statements in peer reviewed science journals you are required to provide data to back them up. No data = discredited. The peer review process failed here - but that shouldn’t surprise us when we know the identity of the peer reviewer.
Stop squabbling.
The 3 pictures that prove you are both dunces are here. Post them all or post none of them.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze43v8m/anthraxandalqaeda.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.