Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Selling the threat of bioterrorism (LA Times investigates Alibek)
LA Times ^ | 7/1/07 | David Willman

Posted on 07/01/2007 8:58:07 AM PDT by TrebleRebel

WASHINGTON — In the fall of 1992, Kanatjan Alibekov defected from Russia to the United States, bringing detailed, and chilling, descriptions of his role in making biological weapons for the former Soviet Union.

----------- Officials still value his seminal depictions of the Soviet program. But recent events have propelled questions about Alibek's reliability:

No biological weapon of mass destruction has been found in Iraq. His most sensational research findings, with U.S. colleagues, have not withstood peer review by scientific specialists. His promotion of nonprescription pills — sold in his name over the Internet and claiming to bolster the immune system — was ridiculed by some scientists. He resigned as executive director of a Virginia university's biodefense center 10 months ago while facing internal strife over his stewardship.

And, as Alibek raised fear of bioterrorism in the United States, he also has sought to profit from that fear.

By his count, Alibek has won about $28 million in federal grants or contracts for himself or entities that hired him.

The Los Angeles Times explored Alibek's public pronouncements, research and business activities as part of a series that will examine companies and government officials central to the U.S. war on terrorism -----------------------

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; Russia
KEYWORDS: academia; alibek; altimimi; amerithrax; anthrax; biologicalweapons; coldwar; islamothrax; kenalibek; russia; ussr; weaponizedanthrax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 661-672 next last
To: TrebleRebel; Biodefense student

TrebleRebel,

To my ear, Omutninsk sounds like a gag by the late comedian Danny Kaye where he says it while he sneezes. But Debra wrote the book. Literally. I’m going to have to send you her 2006 thesis “Lessons learned from the former Soviet biological warfare program” or have her send a copy if we are going to be on the same page — or the same 240 pages with 3 pages of bibliographic references. She’s learned a lot from the esteemed faculty member Peter L, who worked at the DOD while he taught at GMU, so perhaps you can glean whether the DOD credits your theory. (We know Ken doesn’t — he thinks that the concept of a “coating” makes no sense.) See transcript of his explanation provided by Mr. Lake.

On Sverdlosk, unclassified DIA documents show that the intelligence community met with Dr. Meselson at his request and there was a consensus of the representatives from the various agencies that was reached after he left the room that they felt he wasn’t asking the Russians the hard questions. So while we have someone so steeped in learning, let’s ask her the hard questions. Communication is a prerequisite to understanding.

BTW, if ever it should turn out that Ken has obfuscated how to weaponize anthrax, that’s a good thing, right? That’s what he’s supposed to do, right? The gaps left to the knowledge in the GMU patents (where one is referred to the knowledge of those practiced in the art) are broad. It’s important to keep them so.


41 posted on 07/11/2007 2:59:04 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

I’ll send you the thesis later this morning.

But in the meantime, hopefully someone will go for the documents that will show Al-Timimi’s access. GMU moved around a bunch and there wasn’t official directory beyond the less detailed and fallible directory published in October 2001 of each year that only provided the location and phone number of faculty and administration. The official records that are highly pertinent, however, relate to the forms relating to his approved access — the actual form that have to be filled out in order to issue people keys. The forms contain not only the room numbers but also the hours the person is allowed to enter the building. The records were kept in a manilla folder in key control, right around the corner from the police dept office in Occoquan. They may still have Timimi’s paperwork which would be able to tell you everywhere on campus he had access. He likely had more than one form. Here is a website address.

http://www.gmu.edu/police/programsandservices.htm


42 posted on 07/11/2007 4:11:57 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Biodefense student
As far as coating the spores in resin, that is incorrect too. Though for obvious common sense reasons I won't elaborate further, I'll just point out that coating spores in resin would increase their particle size and mass, decreasing their ability to "float". Sorry, don't know where you received your information but sadly much of what I have seen printed is incorrect.

Arguing with TrebleRebel on this subject is a waste of time. I've been telling him the same thing for years and years. He considers Gary Matsumoto's article in Science Magazine to be the holy writ on how the spores were made. Doug Beecher at the FBI labs said that Matsumoto's article was wrong and misleading, but TrebleRebel will tell you Beecher's article is just part of the FBI's sinister plot to keep people from learning the truth about the "supersophistication of the attack spores". My analysis of the Science article is HERE.

In late 2004, I talked with Dr. Alibek on the subject of his formulation for improving the "flyability" of spores. Some details are on my site and in my book. I have excerpts from my discussion on my site. CLICK HERE. I have more details of the formulation in my book. It's really very simple. Unlike the article in Science, it also makes very good scientific sense.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

43 posted on 07/11/2007 7:28:26 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

Characterizing Mesleson’s behavior regarding Sverdlovsk as “not asking the hard questions” is akin to calling Charles Manson a misunderstood musician.

Meselson is a biologist with zero expertise in pathology. On the first trip to Sverdlovsk Meselson was accomapnied by one of the worlds top pathologists, Alexis Shelokov. Soviet pathologists at Sverdlovsk risked their lives to show Mesleson and Shelokov autopsy slides from the victims that they had hidden from the KGB. Shelokov immediately diagnosed inhlational anthrax from the position of lesions seen in the samples. Meselson, who was the leader of the team, unilateraly overruled this and went along with the official KGB-inspired contaminated sausages fairy tale.

Shelokov personally related this story to me several years ago.


44 posted on 07/11/2007 7:33:24 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; Biodefense student

Arguing with Ed lake, whose claim to fame is uncovering fake nude celebrity pictures ( http://www.fake-detective.com/ ), is like trying to persuade the Pope that god is a protestant.

Lake claims that weaponized anthrax spores (and weaponized simulants) are NOT coated with silica. His claims are based on what he was told by Ken Alibek. Apparently the rest of the world disagrees with this. There are numerous pictures and descriptions of weaponized simulants in the Volume “Microbial Forensics”. They are are all coated with silica nanoparticles, as they should be.

Of course that doesn’t deter Lake from his conspiracy theories. He simply says all the scientists who wrote this volume deliberately pretented these were weaponzed spores in order to fool people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

In February 2005, Stephan P. Velsko of Lawrence Livermore National Labs published a paper titled “Physical and Chemical Analytical Analysis: A key component of Bioforensics”.[14] In this paper, Velsko illustrated that different silica coating processes gave rise to weaponized anthrax simulants that look completely different from one another. He suggested that the difference in the look of products could provide evidence of what method the lab that manufactured the 2001 anthrax used, and thus provide clues to the ultimate origin of the material.

In May 2005, Academic Press published the volume “Microbial Forensics” edited by Roger Breeze, Bruce Budowle and Steven Schutzer.[15] Bruce Budowle is with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Forensic Science Laboratory. Although the volume does not directly discuss the silica coatings found in the senate anthrax of 2001, the contributors to the chapters discuss in detail the forensics of silica coated weaponized bacterial spores. Pictures are shown of silica weaponized bacillus spores that are both mixed with silica and fully coated with silica. Pictures of weaponized Clostridium spores coated with colloidal (spherical) silica are also shown. Again, the aim of these studies is to define the forensic fingerprints of silica weaponization processes.


45 posted on 07/11/2007 7:43:31 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; Biodefense student

Hundreds of references can quickly be found on the internet from dozens of qualified sources confirming that silica coatings are ubiquitous in weaponizing anthrax spores. Here are a few below:

American Medical Association:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/print/6631.html\
Spores can also be COATED with an electrostatic powder so that they do not clump easily and fall to the ground quickly; these spores would then be more easily aerosolized (dispersed into the air).

Christopher Grace, MD (Univ of Vermont):
http://www.fahc.org/Healthcare_Providers/Healthcare_Providers_Contribution/Bioterrorism_Curriculum/Email_4_April_14.pdf
Anthrax spores that have been weaponized are finley milled to <5um diameter and COATED to prevent clumping.

Alan Zelicoff:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/3nations.html
``The amount of energy needed to disperse the spores [by merely opening an envelope] was trivial, which is virtually diagnostic of achieving the appropriate coating.’’

EDVOTEK (The Biology of Baterial Sporation):
http://www.edvotek.com/pdfs/161.pdf
The spores may also be COATED or mixed with silica.................

DuPont presonal prtotection (technical bulletin):
http://personalprotection.dupont.ca/pa_pdf/h96406techanthrax.pdf

Inhalation exposure is enhanced when anthrax spores are artificially COATED to reduce clumping.

Coulmbia University:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/courses/g4158/presentations/2004/BacillusAnthracis.ppt

Weaponizing anthrax: Basic approach is to COAT the spores with a fine silica.

http://www.forensicnetbase.com/books/2786/1660_09.pdf

Further “weaponization” can be accomplished by processing of the spores such that the tendency for individual spores to clump together is reduced and penetration deep into the distal airways is facilitated. This process results in a detectable COATING of the spore that was seen in oragnisms recovered during the 2001 attack.


46 posted on 07/11/2007 9:05:13 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
Lake claims that weaponized anthrax spores (and weaponized simulants) are NOT coated with silica.

I don't claim it. I state it as a FACT. No one who examined or viewed the anthrax spores mailed to the two senators in 2001 saw any coating on the spores.

The idea of coating spores to make them more "flyable" is absolute and total nonsense. It's beyond that. It's ridiculous and absurd. It's just plain STUPID. As "Biodefense student" said, coating spores makes them HEAVIER, and therefore LESS FLYABLE.

Silica is not used to COAT spores. It's MIXED WITH SPORES as a drying agent to keep the spores from absorbing moisture. If spores absorb moisture, they'll clump, just the way your instant coffee crystals will clump if you leave the jar open and they absorb moisture from the air.

His claims are based on what he was told by Ken Alibek.

My statements are based upon SCIENCE. I interviewed Dr. Alibek, Bill Patrick, Matthew Meselson and many others to understand the SCIENCE of spores and bioweapons. It was clear that some irresponsible reporters were ignoring the scientists who would know the facts - microbiologists specifically - and instead were going to "scientists" who would be totally ignorant on the subject of spores, like chemists and pharmacists, to find the "experts" who would tell them what they wanted to hear.

Of course that doesn’t deter Lake from his conspiracy theories.

TrebleRebel believes that if microbiologists agree about microbiology and agree that the chemists and pharmacists are wrong about the microbiology of coating spores, then it must be a conspiracy.

He doesn't like being called a "conspiracy theorist" and claims he doesn't see any conspiracy when he rants endlessly that the FBI is covering up the facts about a "supersophisticated" coating, when he claims that Meselson and Alibek are in on the plot to mislead the American people, when he claims that Doug Beecher is lying, etc.

TrebleRebel spins everything to support his beliefs. He cites a book which shows pictures of coated spores which PROVE that coating spores is ridiculous, but he sees those pictures as some kind of proof that spores are coated when turned into bioweapons. Obviously, the pictures were intended to INSTRUCT first responders and others what coated spores would look like, so they won't make the same mistakes that were made with the anthrax in the Daschle letter and FALSELY ASSUME there was a coating even though no coating was visible to ANYONE. The pictures in the book show that such a "coating" would be clearly visible to EVERYONE.

Just look at these pictures: Could anyone possibly look at those spores and miss the fact that they are coated? Could anyone believe that spores coated in such a way would be more "flyable" than pure spores which have been flying around and killing people for thousands of years?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

47 posted on 07/11/2007 9:19:19 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; TrebleRebel

I’m not arguing with TrebleRebel and I never find it a waste time to learn from him (or anyone) and look forward to the day it is over beers. Now let me give a quick summary of Debra’s thesis. Alibek and Patrick both wrote forewords. Debra, who does Bill Patrick is responsible for the anthrax mailings? Al Qaeda? Or US-based supporters of Al Qaeda? What about Glen Cross who likely has thought a lot about Amerithrax and was also advised by Dr. Alibek.

The stated purpose of Debra’s doctoral project “Lessons learned from the former Soviet biological warfare program” was to develop the most credible educational tool openly available to enhance the understanding and the application of biological weapons threat analysis. The theory governing the effectiveness of biological weapons was integrated from publications, lectures, and seminars primarily provided by Kenneth Alibek and William C. Patrick III, the world’s foremost authorities on the topic. Both experts validated the accuracy of the theory compiled from their work and provided forewords. An exercise requiring analysis of four national intelligence estimates of the former Soviet biological warfare program was included in the form of educational case studies to enhance retention, experience, and confidence by providing a platform against which the reader can apply the newly learned theory. After studying the chapters on BW theory, the reader can compare his/her analysis of the national intelligence estimates against the analysis provided in the case studies by this researcher. This training aid will be a valuable tool for all who are concerned with the threat posed by biological weapons and are therefore seeking the most reliable source of information in order to better understand the true nature of the threat.

Third sentence: “Highly regarded scientists have publications that unintentionally contain misleading or imprecise information that could misdirect preparation for a biological attack.”

“The only way we can adequately prepare to meet the threat is if we are able to identify it in all its forms. Because we have so few people trained to anticipate the tactics that may be used by our opponents and the realistic threats such tactics pose, many of these individuals we have to rely upon to guide use in our defenses aren’t the optimal individuals to use. They may be experts in very important supporting fields such as microbiology or chemistry however they often lack the specific knowledge and training that would allow them to contribute more broadly to defenses against biological weapons....”

“Aerosol dissemination”” starts at page 56.

“Concentration reaching target” starts at page 6

Separately, Glen A. Cross has a 2007 thesis titled “ Dirty war: The Rhodesian chemical and biological warfare effort, 1975 to 1979” also supervised by Dr. Alibek.

Refresh my recollection, Ed. Was Mr. Cross the fellow who Dr. Hatfill mentioned the idea that a pond would be a way of disposing of equipment? Is he the fellow Marilyn T. then says was hired the FBI as an analyst? If so, another candidate for your summer beach reading is his thesis, which
examines Rhodesia’s effort to identify, develop, and use select chemical and biological agents against a burgeoning African nationalist insurgency during the mid-to-late 1970s. You may recall that Zimbabwe was part of the vapor trail that Don Foster thought followed Dr. Hatfill.

Having granted independence to majority governments in its other African colonies, the British government in the mid-1960s believed it could not grant independence to Rhodesia’s white minority government which ruled a largely disenfranchised African population. After negotiations between London and Salisbury failed to reach a compromise, the Rhodesian government unilaterally declared its independence on 11 November 1965.

Rhodesia’s declaration of independence led the African nationalist groups toward a violent overthrow of the Rhodesian government. From 1965 to 1972, the insurgents launched a disastrous series of raids resulting in the destruction of the insurgent infiltrators. After Portugal withdrew from neighboring Mozambique in 1974, a Marxist government took power that favored the Rhodesian insurgents, and allowed Rhodesian insurgents to establish training bases in Mozambique and launch attacks against Rhodesia, effectively opening a second front in the conflict.

From 1976 to 1979-—with the escalating conflict in Rhodesia-—Rhodesians developed a CBW effort focused on the dissemination of poisoned clothing, food, beverages, and medical supplies destined for guerrilla groups. Biological pathogens and toxins also were employed. Vibrio cholerae also was used to contaminate water supplies. Bacillus anthracis was field tested and considered for deployment at the end of the conflict. Although the Rhodesians considered and may have disseminated some small amount of anthrax in mid-1979, no evidence exists to suggest that the Rhodesian anthrax epidemic (1978-1982) was caused by a Rhodesian release of anthrax into the environment. Some first-hand statements indicate that South African Special Forces were responsible for the Rhodesian anthrax epidemic as part of an effort to punish Matabele villagers for their suspected support of ANC cadres transiting Rhodesia. Although not decisive, the Rhodesian CBW effort resulted in the recorded deaths of over 800 insurgents and possibly hundreds more.

The Rhodesian CBW effort was the progenitor, if not the genesis, of the South African CBW program-—aka “Project Coast.” The Rhodesians provided detailed data on their CBW efforts to their South African counterparts and tested CBW agents for the South Africans. The Rhodesian CBW legacy transmitted to South Africa has resulted in the possible proliferation of that legacy to other unstable regions of the world, meaning that the spectre of the Rhodesian CBW program of the 1970s may remain with us still.


48 posted on 07/11/2007 9:25:07 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

In a telephone call, I first told Ken about the AFIP finding that silica had been detected. He had not known that. All he had ever said prior to that call was that he could not see it on the SEMS images he saw.

With the advancement of silica nanoparticles about the time of the mailings, it is not surprising he did not see it on the SEMS images he was shown.

After using silica in the cuilture medium to permit greater concentration of the biological agent, (see Alibek/Bailey patent dated March 14, 2001), the silica can then be removed through repeated centrifugation or an air chamber. See Bailey/Morozov patent. (Morozov inherited al-Timimi’s phone number).

I would like you to put yourself on record as to why those patents are not indicated by the forensics. The government bioweapons expert I consulted has told me that the patents would serve this purpose — and are indicated by the forensics. While you are not a microbiologist, and neither is Ed, perhaps Debra, too, could put herself on the record as to why use of the method is not indicated by the method described in the patents. it would be especially helpful if Ken did also.

Meanwhile, ATCC should put itself on the record and say it did not have the Ames strain (if that is the case). Presently, they refuse to deny that they had it.


49 posted on 07/11/2007 9:56:33 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Ed, have you read Ken Alibek’s patented method of concentrating a biological agent through use of silica? A method that then leads to “pure spores”?


50 posted on 07/11/2007 10:00:18 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook
Ed, have you read Ken Alibek’s patented method of concentrating a biological agent through use of silica? A method that then leads to “pure spores”?

I believe I looked at it the first time you brought it up.

But there's no reason to believe that such a process was used to create the attack spores. And there's every reason to believe the attack spores were created using standard techniques -- perhaps with a few tricks from the pesticide industry.

Just like TrebleRebel, you just look for things which you can twist to support your beliefs. If you want to believe that Alibek's process was used to create the attack spores, that's up to you. But, to convince anyone else, you need more proof than just your beliefs. You need to PROVE that that process resulted in some "signature" in the spores that wouldn't be there with any other process.

Scientists detected silicon in spores as a result of lab contamination back in 1980. That's still the best explanation for why AFIP detected silicon and oxygen via a energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light), even though no silica could be seen under a Scanning Electron Microscope.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

51 posted on 07/11/2007 10:17:56 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; Biodefense student

Your argument that coated spores are heavier and therefore cannot fly is, of course, absurd.

Coated spores stay as single spores, even if they have a slightly larger mass than uncoated spores. Uncoated spores clump together into heavy clusters of many spores which cannot fly - they also stick to surfaces and cannot re-aerosolize.

This link makes things rather easy to understand:

http://www.lfg.techfak.uni-erlangen.de/Personen/Ehemalige/MLinsenbuehler/Forschung.html

The coated lactose particles, although having a very slightly higher mass than the uncoated lactose particles, have smaller average particle diameters, and thus have far superior aerosol properties.

Lake usually refuses to answer these simple questions:

(1) Out of the two samples at the link above, which lactose sample is heavier (a) Figure 5, pure uncoated lactose particles or (b) Figure 7, lactose particles coated with silica nanoparticles.

and

(2) Out of the two samples at the link above, which lactose sample will most easily aerosolize (a) Figure 5, pure uncoated lactose particles or (b) Figure 7, lactose particles coated with silica nanoparticles.

The answer, of course, is that (b) the coated lactose particles are heavier but will nevertheless have far superior aerosol properties since they will not clump with other lactose particles or stick to other surfaces.

At this point Lake usually has a hissy fit and starts ranting and raving about conspiracy theories - which I’m sure he’s just about to entertain us with now.


52 posted on 07/11/2007 10:22:54 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

“No one who examined or viewed the anthrax spores mailed to the two senators in 2001 saw any coating on the spores.”

Apart from the people that saw a coating that is.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001136-2,00.html
Last week officials went public with a more detailed profile of the bacterium being studied at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md. It is highly concentrated and pure. The material’s light, fine texture and a brown ring around each spore suggest an additive had been introduced to prevent clumping.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0144,smith2,29664,6.html

The New York Times revealed in hushed tone that one unnamed expert said the floaty anthrax spores were surrounded by a brown ring, observable by microscope.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/Bioter/fbisecretlyrecreate.html
Investigators and experts have said the spores in the Daschle and Leahy letters were uniformly between 1 and 3 microns in size, and were coated with fine particles of frothy silica glass.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/sophisticatedstrainanthrax.html

Government sources tell NEWSWEEK that the secret new analysis shows anthrax found in a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy was ground to a microscopic fineness not achieved by U.S. biological-weapons experts. The Leahy anthrax — mailed in an envelope that was recovered unopened from a Washington post office last November — also was coated with a chemical compound unknown to experts who have worked in the field for years; the coating matches no known anthrax samples ever recovered from biological-weapons producers anywhere in the world, including Iraq and the former Soviet Union. The combination of the intense milling of the bacteria and the unusual coating produced an anthrax powder so fine and fluffy that individually coated anthrax spores were found in the Leahy envelope, something that U.S. bioweapons experts had never seen.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxpowdernotroutine.html

Extensive lab tests of the anthrax powder have revealed new details about how the powder was made, including the identity of a chemical used to coat the trillions of microscopic spores to keep them from clumping together.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/unusualcoating.html

Scientists have found a new chemical in the coating on the anthrax spores mailed to journalists and politicians last fall, a high-ranking government official said Wednesday.


53 posted on 07/11/2007 10:38:12 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ZacandPook

“In a telephone call, I first told Ken about the AFIP finding that silica had been detected. He had not known that.”

Can you remember when you had the telephone call? Was it before or after Monday, March 31, 2003?

Because he knew about AFIPs finding of silica on that date, unless he forgot about it.
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_iraq_alibek033103.htm

Dallas, Tex.: A published analysis of the anthrax mailed to government and media in Oct. 2001 shows unambiguously that silicon dioxide was present on the surface of the spores. The work was performed by the AFIP and the results can be seen here.
Does this mean, in your opinion, that the anthrax was made in a state-sponsored bioweapons lab?

Ken Alibek: We paid to much attention to the silicon oxide on the surface of the spores. I haven’t seen any silicon presence on micrographs of this anthrax. We shouldn’t forget that silica would be a natural component. In this case, in my opinion, silica was a natural presence in these spores. There was no special need to add silica to this anthrax.


54 posted on 07/11/2007 10:51:20 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel; ZacandPook

It seems to me unlikely that he would forget learning of AFIPs results on Monday, March 31, 2003.

After all, he had gone to considerable lengths in November 2002 to emphasize that “Until knowledgeable government investigators announce their results, statements attributed to anonymous sources or from persons who have not examined the actual evidence should be greeted with caution.” He did this by writing a letter to the Washington Post.

I assume you will agree with me that AFIPs report is by “knowledgeable government investigators” - after all they were the lab charged by the FBI to analyze the powder.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxundermicroscope.html


55 posted on 07/11/2007 10:55:33 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Okay, so Ed is on the record saying he did not consult any biodefense expert and just concluded there was no reason to think it applied.

That proves Debra’s thesis about the importance of making such determinations based on knowledge of the microbiology, and not one’s lay preconceptions.

Perhaps in an era when our enemies wish the destruction of major metropolitan centers like NYC and DC, folks already choosing to spend inordinate time following Amerithrax can at least inform themselves with the opinon of a bioweapons expert on such questions. There are some microbiologists and friends of microbiologists who follow these threads. Perhaps they could review the patents and give their opinion. I’m not looking for folks to agree (or not) — I’m just soliciting expert opinions. I’m being guided by a military scientist who knows enough about aerosol science to have had his lab raided by the FBI in Amerithrax. Unlike Ed, he is qualified to render an expert opinion on the science.

The technique is a commercially available technique — and represents a few tricks for the concentration of agents. It is deemed “bio-friendly.” And so there is nothing in Ed’s response that indicates they are not applicable. His failure to consult a bioweapons expert before reaching his conclusion demonstrates what Ed calls “cognitive rigidity.” Indeed, as indicated on the face of the patent, the method can be used to concentrate bio-pesticides.


56 posted on 07/11/2007 10:58:25 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

I don’t know. But I told you, Mr. Lake and our friend Richard at the time. So your inbox would have it. I don’t keep emails.

I believe I first became Ken’s biggest fan in June 2002 on a Washington Post chat on Amerithrax (not Iraq). (So it definitely was after that Amerithrax chat). You questioned him about silica — and as I recall he said that whether it had silica or not wasn’t the be-all, end-all. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t — but he couldn’t see any. I questioned him about whether he thought a spray dryer was used. At the time, he did. But over the years he came to think, he tells me, a fluidized bed dryer was used. There’s a couple chapters in BIOHAZARD 2 (draft) on the subject. I still think a min-spraydryer was used, because the Bucchi rep told me there’s no way to get rid of the charge. (It’s from the velocity coming through the nozzle). Ken thinks the charge came from the mail sorting machines. And you think it was intentionally added — such as by a corona discharge.

I believe the device used was a US Army funded device that was in prototype in 2001 that through repeated centrifugation and sequential filtration concentrated anthrax samples. It was tested in the summer of 2001. That is what would serve well in concentrating the spores and removing the silica from the surface.

The government contact worked for the Navy - UNMC.

The maling label I have from the ISU professor (the one with the prototype device) actually was faxed to ISU from doctor Knudson at UNMC (as they tried to figure out after 9/11 the route that Ames took from the dead cow) Knudson is the one who originally collected the Ames strain.


57 posted on 07/11/2007 11:13:03 AM PDT by ZacandPook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
Uncoated spores clump together into heavy clusters of many spores which cannot fly - they also stick to surfaces and cannot re-aerosolize.

FALSE!

The subject is MICROBIOLOGY, NOT CHEMISTRY. Your beliefs are based upon manufactured substances made from polar molecules such as lactose. Polar molecules (like water) will bind together.

DRY spores will not stick together in any significant way. If two DRY spores are placed together, any force -- even the slightest breeze -- could easily separate them. That's why you cannot leave a Petri dish with an anthrax culture open in a lab. The bacteria will sporulate and float away. NATURE DESIGNED SPORES TO DO THAT.

Your belief that van der Waals forces would affect a spore exactly the same way as a particle of lactose of the same size is just plain IGNORANT.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

58 posted on 07/11/2007 11:13:55 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Of course, you know better than the rest of the world. Hey, maybe if you write “FALSE” in even bigger, even deeper red letters someone might listen to you.

American Medical Association:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/print/6631.html\
Spores can also be COATED with an electrostatic powder so that they do not clump easily and fall to the ground quickly; these spores would then be more easily aerosolized (dispersed into the air).

Christopher Grace, MD (Univ of Vermont):
http://www.fahc.org/Healthcare_Providers/Healthcare_Providers_Contribution/Bioterrorism_Curriculum/Email_4_April_14.pdf
Anthrax spores that have been weaponized are finley milled to <5um diameter and COATED to prevent clumping.

Alan Zelicoff:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/3nations.html
``The amount of energy needed to disperse the spores [by merely opening an envelope] was trivial, which is virtually diagnostic of achieving the appropriate coating.’’

EDVOTEK (The Biology of Baterial Sporation):
http://www.edvotek.com/pdfs/161.pdf
The spores may also be COATED or mixed with silica.................

DuPont presonal prtotection (technical bulletin):
http://personalprotection.dupont.ca/pa_pdf/h96406techanthrax.pdf

Inhalation exposure is enhanced when anthrax spores are artificially COATED to reduce clumping.

Coulmbia University:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/courses/g4158/presentations/2004/BacillusAnthracis.ppt

Weaponizing anthrax: Basic approach is to COAT the spores with a fine silica.

http://www.forensicnetbase.com/books/2786/1660_09.pdf

Further “weaponization” can be accomplished by processing of the spores such that the tendency for individual spores to clump together is reduced and penetration deep into the distal airways is facilitated. This process results in a detectable COATING of the spore that was seen in oragnisms recovered during the 2001 attack.


59 posted on 07/11/2007 11:20:00 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
Apart from the people that saw a coating that is.

I repeat: NO ONE SAW ANY COATING.

You cite articles about a "brown ring." A brown ring is NOT a coating. There was never a good explanation of what the "brown ring" meant.

There were a LOT of newspaper articles about things that people BELIEVED were there or should be there, but NONE of these articles name any person who actually SAW a coating on the spores.

Shortly after the attacks, the media was filled with nonsensical articles about coatings. IT WAS ALL SPECULATION based upon mistakes made by people who had never seen dry spores before and didn't know what to expect. I go into great detail about this in Chapter 15 of my book, which you can read by clicking HERE.

All the experts who have actually seen the Daschle anthrax or images of the Daschle anthrax and who have been asked about coatings on the spores have stated that THEY SAW NO COATINGS ON THE SPORES.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

60 posted on 07/11/2007 11:27:21 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 661-672 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson