Skip to comments.If not Ivins ...(Bruce Ivins had nothing to do with preparing or sending the anthrax letters)
Posted on 08/29/2008 7:25:37 AM PDT by Prunetacos
When Norm Covert, a conservative former Fort Detrick public affairs officer, and attorney Barry Kissin, liberal activist opposing Detrick's biolab expansion, agree that Bruce Ivins was not the anthrax killer, either the world's spinning off its axis, or the truth is staring us so hard in the face we'd have to be blind to miss it. Covert's piece this week in thetentacle.com establishes what many in our community, including scientists and support staff at USAMRIID, past and present, know: Bruce Ivins had nothing to do with preparing or sending the anthrax letters. --
(Excerpt) Read more at fredericknewspost.com ...
Is Ed Lake on Crack?
From his website today:
For example, in one email this morning, I was asked this question:
So if the anthrax in the letters both came from the flask or the same batch, which was said to be mixed spores, so some of each type of spores would have been in both mailings, then explain why Bacillus Subtilus was in the media letters, but not in the Senate letters.
O.K., Ed, either one of the following, please:
1.) Provide a link, reference, or other confirmatory information about this alleged bacillus subtilis in the media letters (couldn’t find one on your website), or
2.) Stop smoking that stuff! It will make your teeth fall out!
Sorry. I didn't think it would be an issue. The Bacillus subtilis contamination of the media letters is mentioned in the one of the affidavits in the case. Here's what is on page 5 of that affidavit:
Both of the anthrax spore powders recovered from the Post and Brokaw letters contain low levels of a bacterial contaminant identified as a strain of Bacillus subtilis. The Bacillus subtilis contaminant has not been detected in the anthrax spore powders recovered from the envelopes mailed to either Senator Leahy or Senator Daschle. Bacillus subtilis is a nonpathogenic bacterium found ubiquitously in the environment. However, genomic DNA sequencing of the specific isolate of Bacillus subtilis discovered within the Post and Brokaw powders reveals that it is genetically distinct from other known isolates of Bacillus subtilis. Analysis of the Bacillus subtilis from the Post and Brokaw envelopes revealed that these two isolates are identical.
Phenotypic and genotypic analyses demonstrate that the RMR-1029 does not have the Bacillus subtilis contaminant found in the evidentiary spore powders, which suggests that the anthrax used in the letter attacks was grown from the material contained in RMR-1029 and not taken directly from the flask and placed in the envelopes. Since RMR-1029 is the genetic parent to the evidentiary spore powders, and it is not known how the Bacillus subtilis contaminant came to be in the Post and Brokaw spore powders, the contaminant must have been introduced during the production of the Post and Brokaw spores.
Okay? It's also mentioned in the transcript of the roundtable discussion.
“However, genomic DNA sequencing of the specific isolate of Bacillus subtilis discovered within the Post and Brokaw powders reveals that it is genetically distinct from other known isolates of Bacillus subtilis.”
Could be a significant finding, no?
They say no.
The affidavit says:
Bacillus subtilis is a nonpathogenic bacterium found ubiquitously in the environment.
In other words, it's everywhere. And there are too many variations for anyone to keep track of.
In the roundtable discussion they said, "it really didn't drive us any place specific."
That tells me that, either they found it all over the place, or they realized it couldn't be used to prove anything, so they stopped looking after awhile.
It could also be like the hairs found in the mailbox. The odds that the hair would be from Ivins' head were probably a million to one against. But they had to test. When it was confirmed that it wasn't Ivins' hair, it proved nothing. But the MEDIA had headlines: "Hair Samples in Anthrax Case Don't Match."
Sometimes it's better not to go down a path that you know will only lead to confusion and misunderstandings -- particularly when you know there are much better paths to travel.
There are only 24 hours in a day. It's not humanly possible to explore every possible option to everything.
I should have added: That's why we have so many conspiracy theorists. The conspiracy theorists can always argue that IF the FBI had gone all the way down path #1,276,859,204 it is possible it would have led directly to the person they believe was responsible for the anthrax attacks.
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.