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

Skip to comments.

Amerithrax experts debate FBI findings, insist Ivins was innocent
The Frederick News-Post ^ | November 30, 2010 | Megan Eckstein

Posted on 11/30/2010 9:43:41 AM PST by EdLake

WASHINGTON -- The FBI may have closed its Amerithax case against Fort Detrick scientist Bruce Ivins nine months ago, but some experts are not willing to let the issue die quite so easily.

A group of about 25 scientists, professors, writers, terrorism experts and more convened Monday afternoon to discuss the particulars of the investigation and to debate who the real perpetrator may have been.

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


TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; Breaking News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: amerithrax; anthrax; braking; bruceivins; conspiracies; fbi; ivins; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-130 next last
To: exDemMom

Is it possible that he didn’t think anyone would be killed—that they would get Cipro and be fine, since there were warnings enclosed and it wasn’t known that the stuff could permeate the envelopes?


51 posted on 11/30/2010 8:26:46 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
I don't think he was involved. As I said, he was a nice guy. He wasn't one of those people you talk to, who's nice on the surface, but you get the sense that something inside is fundamentally awry. There's a Wikipedia article about him in which a scientist who worked with him said that neither he nor other people who worked with him believe that he is guilty.

Some of the "evidence" against him was awfully shaky. For instance, the FBI released emails in 2008 in which Ivins describes being treated for mental problems--nevermind the fact that anyone hounded by the FBI the way he was might develop some mental problems. Another piece of "evidence" is that he was working late laboratory hours. Oh, heaven forbid that a scientist work late in the lab, it MUST be a sign that they're up to no good (says sarcastically the person who, as a grad student, often worked til 10 pm or later, and came in on weekends and holidays as well).

52 posted on 11/30/2010 9:26:12 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

I’m a scientist. I looked right past those bits of the FBI report without even considering them. :-)


53 posted on 11/30/2010 11:27:17 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Peabody
"They were too close in time to 9/11 and I don’t believe in coincidences."

It wasn't a "coincidence." Ivins evidently wanted to warn America of the danger that al Qaeda could launch a bioweapons attack next. So, he sent the anthrax to the media in letters that looked like they were written by Muslim terrorists. It's his reaction to 9/11, not a "coincidence."

"If the Ames strain was in Canada or Sweden then it was in Russia and Iraq. Biologists ship each other bacterial strains all the time."

The Ames strain was in Canada and Sweden, but only 2 labs in the U.S. had the Ames strain that contained the same mutations that were in the anthrax letters. So, the attack anthrax couldn't have come from those samples in Canada or Sweden.

Ivins prepared a special batch of 30 trillion anthrax spores to use in tests at Ft. Detrick. He thought those spores were untraceable and identical to samples that the USDA gave to anyone who asked for samples. But, Ivins was wrong. Those 30 trillion spores contained mutations that identified Ivins' flask RMR-1029 as the unique source for the attack anthrax.

"Also, Atta was seeking out crop dusters. If he was trying to get a crop duster he probably already had something to put in one, right?"

Yes, and what he was thinking about putting in them was GASOLINE. He looked into ways to put extra tanks of gas in the back of the plane. He was evidently planning to use the crop dusters as flying bombs, to fly into buildings somewhere. Then they got a better idea - to hijack airliners and use them instead.

Spreading anthrax via a crop duster is possible, but you'd need HUGE amounts of anthrax. There's no evidence that they had such amounts or any capability of making such amounts. The letters contained less than 3 grams of anthrax spores in total. There are 28 grams to an ounce.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

54 posted on 12/01/2010 7:05:34 AM PST by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

I see T n’ A.


55 posted on 12/01/2010 7:11:11 AM PST by jd777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"I knew Bruce Ivins. I have absolutely no reason to believe that he was behind any of this—he was a nice, friendly man."

That just means you're biased.

Ivins had mental problems. One of his psychiatrists felt he should have been put in jail BEFORE the anthrax attacks.

He broke into a sorority and stole a secret book and then tried to sell the book back to them. He had fixations with that sorority.

He expressed thoughts of killing people in emails he sent under false names.

He was a diagnosed sociopath. That means he was very skillful at fooling people into thinking he was a nice guy when he was actually manipulating them to do what he wanted them to do.

The FBI didn't zero in on Dr. Hatfill. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg got the media to focus in on Hatfill, and she got some staffers for some Senators to DEMAND that the FBI investigate Hatfill. Newspapers were accusing the FBI of covering up for Hatfill. It was only after eight months of that kind of pressure that the FBI finally did a search of Hatfill's apartment, and suddenly they were described in the media as being the cause of all of the interest in Hatfill and everyone forgot about what went on during the previous eight months.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

56 posted on 12/01/2010 7:16:49 AM PST by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
"What's she up to these days...any idea?"

She was in her 70's when the anthrax attacks occurred. That means she's in her 80's now. What do people in their 80's usually do? If she's still working, she's teaching at a college in upstate New York.

I think she focused on Hatfill because he was a flamboyant character, a blow-hard, and there were rumors that he worked for the CIA in Africa, where there was a major anthrax outbreak at one time - when Hatfill was in Africa.

Rosbenberg never apologized to Hatfill. She stated that, if Hatfill was innocent, then it's the FBI's fault for investigating him, not hers.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

57 posted on 12/01/2010 7:23:17 AM PST by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"There's a Wikipedia article about him in which a scientist who worked with him said that neither he nor other people who worked with him believe that he is guilty."

Actually, on Monday at a seminar in Washington that is the subject of this thread, someone who worked at Ft. Detrick with Ivins, Dr. John Ezzell, said it was possible that Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

And according to Dina Temple-Raston, an NPR reporter who lectures on the case, "All his co-workers think Ivins did it”.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

58 posted on 12/01/2010 7:35:06 AM PST by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: jd777
I see T n’ A.

:-)

And it makes sense there are twice as many T's as A's, right?

By the way, don't bother going here. False advertising.

59 posted on 12/01/2010 7:58:21 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
One of those labs that was thought to have this strain was Iowa State University.

Bob Stevens died in Florida on October 5, 2001, it was late on Friday afternoon. We were all still reeling from 9-11-01.

October 6 and 7 was the weekend and there was a small article in USA Today but it was the weekend edition and few get that.

October 8 it was in USA today and Iowa State then attempted to get permission to destroy their collection of anthrax.

Go ahead, call the FBI and see who you get and what they say. It is a bureau of layered authority and they never got a direct answer just like anyone else who calls them. So on October 10, 11 and 12, the professors who had been there for many years then destroyed ONE OF THE TWO collections of anthrax on the campus.

What they destroyed was the historical collection that was kept at the veterinary school. It was just that....a collection close to 100 vials with very old stuff in them.

But if you understand the pathogen you will know that it can be teased to life with a little time and effort.

Why would this institution quickly destroy what they knew the feds would eventually figure out that they needed to look at who had what?????

What did they know and when did they know it?

You can fill in the blanks by reading Lew Weinstein’s blog under “Marcia's Story”.

Beyond that, here is another nugget.

From the beginning of time anthrax has been named for the black coal-like lesion that it always was. It was a dry sore that did NOT HURT and did not drip.

The sores from the mailings were runny, dripped a lot and still DID NOT HURT. It was just a little different.

If you read the scientific papers there is evidence that there is some variation in the mailed samples....i.e....two kinds. One with a fluted edge and one without.

A fluted edge is created when excess water runs down the sides of the colony after being turned over in the counting process. This kind would make a running sore.

60 posted on 12/01/2010 5:42:41 PM PST by Battle Axe (Repent, for the coming of the Lord is nigh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
He was a diagnosed sociopath. That means he was very skillful at fooling people into thinking he was a nice guy when he was actually manipulating them to do what he wanted them to do.

First of all, if he was a diagnosed sociopath, he either would not have been granted access to the BSL3 labs, or it would have been pulled and he would have been sent packing. Getting access to a BSL3 or BSL4 lab is not a trivial matter. USAMRIID isn't exactly like the average university--you don't just get people walking in wanting to work there. Also, I don't know about you, but to me, sociopaths stand out as clearly as if they are wearing signs. I cannot tolerate being around them.

The FBI didn't zero in on Dr. Hatfill. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg got the media to focus in on Hatfill, and she got some staffers for some Senators to DEMAND that the FBI investigate Hatfill. Newspapers were accusing the FBI of covering up for Hatfill. It was only after eight months of that kind of pressure that the FBI finally did a search of Hatfill's apartment, and suddenly they were described in the media as being the cause of all of the interest in Hatfill and everyone forgot about what went on during the previous eight months.

And who was this Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, and how did someone from New York know a post-doctoral fellow at USAMRIID, or have a clue as to what kind of work he was doing for his post-doc? That whole explanation sounds fishy to me. He wasn't fingered by Rosenberg.

61 posted on 12/01/2010 6:03:30 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
So, unless someone can show me that prior to 9-11-01, there was a lesion produced from R-1029 that dripped, then I am assuming that prior to 9-11 it could not have produced a dripping lesion.

The only dripping lesions were those from the mailed samples. And those mailed samples could have made their way into R-1029. Either on purpose or by accident.

Maybe on purpose to throw off the feds.

If R-1029 was the source, then there would have had to have been lesions that dripped prior to 9-11.

The lesions that have been reported dripping were Margano’s in GERMS by Judith Miller and the baby at ABC in the CDC reports. Also another postal worker named O’Donnall (sp?)and his dripped until his physician cut it off his neck.

The reason that I could not get the State Veterinary and the State Epidemiologist interested in my eyewitness account was this dripping. The sores I saw dripped and did so profusely. I saw these two sores in 1990.

This was three weeks after Rabbi Meir Kahane (the New York Jewish guy) was killed.

It's all connected, but leave out Malvo etc. Sorry, Saj.

62 posted on 12/01/2010 6:03:55 PM PST by Battle Axe (Repent, for the coming of the Lord is nigh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe
No offense, but Marcia Chambers is not a credible witness, IMO.

Why would this institution quickly destroy what they knew the feds would eventually figure out that they needed to look at who had what?????

Come on...you know that administrators would be wanting to get rid of the stuff before 9/11 if they were more aware. And after 9/11, do you think anyone could have stood up to the push? Whose budget was going to absorb the security requirements and liability, all for the sake of having that excellent record? Sorry, but universities are businesses...science might get done there, but it doesn't drive the place.

I don't follow your latter points, but let me ask...are you suggesting that al-Qaeda terrorists launched an anthrax attack and then went out of their way to reduce casualties?

63 posted on 12/01/2010 6:14:32 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
He was a diagnosed sociopath. That means he was very skillful at fooling people into thinking he was a nice guy when he was actually manipulating them to do what he wanted them to do.

First of all, if he was a diagnosed sociopath, he either would not have been granted access to the BSL3 labs, or it would have been pulled and he would have been sent packing. Getting access to a BSL3 or BSL4 lab is not a trivial matter. Ft. Detrick isn't exactly like the average university--people can't just come in and work. Also, I don't know about you, but to me, sociopaths stand out as clearly as if they are wearing signs. I cannot tolerate being around them.

The FBI didn't zero in on Dr. Hatfill. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg got the media to focus in on Hatfill, and she got some staffers for some Senators to DEMAND that the FBI investigate Hatfill.

Who was this Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, and since she was in New York, how could she know a fellow (one of many) at Ft. Detrick, or have a clue as to what kind of work he was doing for his fellowship? That whole explanation sounds fishy to me. He wasn't fingered by Rosenberg.

64 posted on 12/01/2010 6:17:27 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
The three profs that destroyed it at ISU were there in 1990 when it was stolen.

In any lab situation there is an authority that licenses the work. Both state and federal authorities work on similar principles.

The lab can only operate and charge a fee if all of the guide lines are met. One is a pathogen free environment. If there is a contaminant, then the contaminant cannot be ruled out.

Our lab was state controlled and we were tested every 6 months. You could fail one test, but not two out of 5 or two consecutive tests.

It is my belief that ISU destroyed their collection because they had failed two consecutive tests. The two tests were 6 months apart and only a year after 1990. In order to keep operating, a lab must file a “problem solving solution”. It has another name that escapes me tonight. So on April 15, 1992 ISU requested the use of paraformaldehyde “to decontaminate a high containment area” for a pathogen “ a dreaded disease of both livestock and man”.

When I remembered some of what had happened in 1990, I contacted the EPA and was told that the Section 18 which was granted on June 15, 1992, 60 days after the application, was still in effect. And that they had used over 110 pounds of the stuff that is supposed to be reported in grams. They had tried to wipe it out.

But!!! this stuff is to weak to wipe it out. The next step up is chlorine gas which requires evacuation of adjacent areas. Too much.

My belief is that ISU knew or thought that had been compromised, but weren't sure. They had discovered a problem of contamination but had no idea who or when.

I often wondered why they destroyed all of the samples and not just what had been stolen, but they may not have known what was stolen, maybe multiples. Easier to get rid of it all.

65 posted on 12/01/2010 6:44:08 PM PST by Battle Axe (Repent, for the coming of the Lord is nigh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe
I often wondered why they destroyed all of the samples and not just what had been stolen, but they may not have known what was stolen, maybe multiples. Easier to get rid of it all.

At the time, they said that there was no overall inventory, so they wouldn't know if something was missing (whew, sloppy!). Are you disputing that?

Do you have the documentation of the paraformaldehyde usage in grams online somewhere I could see it?

66 posted on 12/01/2010 7:33:00 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
The EPA was a telephone conversation and I'll think of her name in the middle of the night. I'm sure her number is in my note somewhere. She told me there were different places that were approved for treatment, one used.....grams and the other......grams. So there were two places that had some contamination.

I remember driving by the USDA facility which was actually on my way home, north of the main campus, by the railroad tracks out by itself. It was a concrete block building with one door in the front, no windows or doors on the east side and only one block glass window, the kind that wouldn't implode or get smashed on the west side. I never saw the back of the place, but that was where the fences led, so I assume that the animals that were kept in small pens on the west side were funneled around the back and were allowed in the north side.

I've tried to find that building on Google Earth and can't. Might not be there now. But it was where they actually did the experiments on animals.

I was always intrigued by the contraptions on the flat roof. Huge boxes, tubes, coils, funnels and lots of stainless steel. Today I feel that was a negative air flow system so that no spores could get out.

That supposedly had its own collection or supply of anthrax. That was not destroyed.

Now the vet school was and still in right on the south edge almost on top of I-80. Back then it was not the sprawling collection of buildings that it is today. Then there was a long driveway leading to it from the main turn-off. Now I think the whole thing is built up and lots of parking lots.

I know they said there was no overall inventory, so are they admitting that their stewardship of this pathogen was compromised early on?

There was a report early on that the cabinet wasn't lock during the day, but was locked at night. But what does this stuff look like? Could you uncork it and take a spore or two? Was it sealed?

I have to assume that it was not sealed when it was sent to the contact, but the innocent student got it by mistake. The innocent student and her husband both had lesions. She did say she opened the package, she did not say if she opened a vial, or how it was packaged. She just said it looked like seeds.

67 posted on 12/01/2010 7:54:00 PM PST by Battle Axe (Repent, for the coming of the Lord is nigh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/paraformaldehyde_factsheet.htm

Note the four places that were granted the use of this.

For the uninitiated: A Section 18 is granted when the FIFRA label does not include the specific use. P. is not labeled for use on anthrax, so in order to use it you have to get a Section 18, which is like a permission slip to use it this way. The reason that P. is not labeled for use on anthrax is that the manufacturer doesn’t want to go through the process of proving that it works or that it doesn’t work. If they only had 4 sales in this area, it would not pay to have it labeled for this.

Now the EPA lady did say, that after 9-11-01 that ISU came back and requested that the place where the anthrax was stored, the canisters were separately listed as a site.

As for ISU knowing what or which one or if something had been taken, other than the contamination.......

Let’s take ten cookie jars and put 100 cookies in each jar. Now it is your turn to get us some cookies. How are you going to do it?

Come on.....I know you can figure this one out.


68 posted on 12/01/2010 8:05:39 PM PST by Battle Axe (Repent, for the coming of the Lord is nigh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe
The reason that P. is not labeled for use on anthrax is that the manufacturer doesn’t want to go through the process of proving that it works or that it doesn’t work.

Flat-out wrong.

From your source:

Paraformaldehyde is a white, crystalline powder with the odor of formaldehyde that has been used for more than 30 years to decontaminate laboratory facilities and to disinfect sickrooms, clothing, linen, and sickroom utensils.

[...]

Until 1991, paraformaldehyde was also registered for control decontamination of laboratories and experimental animal facilities. However, all registrations for this use and many of the other uses described above were canceled due to nonpayment of registration maintenance fees by the manufacturer.

If they only had 4 sales in this area, it would not pay to have it labeled for this.

Okay...so there's no big secret here as to what's going on! It didn't require any exemption application until after 1991 cancellation...so of course that's when the applications start!

Note also, the quarantine use is separate from the Section 18 emergency use. You're seeming to conflate them.

Let’s take ten cookie jars and put 100 cookies in each jar. Now it is your turn to get us some cookies. How are you going to do it?

Huh?

The cookies aren't all the same recipe, so there are approximately 100 cookies, but it's unknown how many of each kind.

So tell me... how many were taken, if you don't know how many there were to start?

Come on.....I know you can figure this one out.

One can't, logically.


So what did the original documentation say from your FOIA, where you say it was 100 pounds, I think.

69 posted on 12/01/2010 8:24:36 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe
So why send it TO the mysterious Pakistani at Iowa State, if the stuff was already AT Iowa State?! Where was it supposedly from? Are you saying they stole it from the collection, put it onto dry ice, and mailed it locally?!?

And after going through the mail and being shattered, the remaining dry ice wouldn't fit into the container?

Hmmm...fishy... Maybe Reba and her husband were your mysterious thieves.

I remember driving by the USDA facility which was actually on my way home, north of the main campus, by the railroad tracks out by itself.

Are you talking about the building that was just north of Industrial Education II, taken down in the late 1990s?

I know they said there was no overall inventory, so are they admitting that their stewardship of this pathogen was compromised early on?

That's how I took it...that there was nobody using it actively, so it was a pure liability from the administrative standpoint.

70 posted on 12/01/2010 9:02:05 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe
Is this pretty much Reba's anthrax sore you described? It's not weeping a lot, but there's some, I think.

It was round and a series of concentric rings on the inside of her right forearm. It was black, burned black, like burned brownies in the middle, the next ring was yellow pus, hard formed peaks, like cool whip. Next was a thin wall of cells covering an obvious liquid underneath. You could look through the thin layer of cells and see what looked like the ocean floor with nodules floating back and forth in the broth. The nodules were brown, yellow and reddish and appeared to be tethered to the surface beneath them.

The next ring was a white raised circle, flat on top but you could see capillaries coming near the surface making it look like a vat of milk with purple, red and brown snakes frozen tight.

The next ring appeared to be normal skin, but it was quite narrow and on the level with the normal skin. This narrow band was surrounded by what appeared to be a bruise.

71 posted on 12/01/2010 10:21:32 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

I saw the sore on her arm once about one week after she was infected. It was sort of like that, but not exactly. The black part on what I saw was a lot smaller and the yellow ring was a lot bigger and covered with more transparent skin where you could see the things under the thin layer of cells. I saw the same sore another week later and I only saw part of it. The part where the capillaries were turning purple.

The husbands sore was viewed 15 days after infection and was on his face and much smaller between his eye and his nose and that was the one that ran the most.


72 posted on 12/02/2010 6:35:35 AM PST by Battle Axe (Repent, for the coming of the Lord is nigh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
exDemMom wrote: "First of all, if he was a diagnosed sociopath, he either would not have been granted access to the BSL3 labs, or it would have been pulled and he would have been sent packing. Getting access to a BSL3 or BSL4 lab is not a trivial matter."

According to court records, Ivins had a "history dating to his graduate days of homicidal threats, actions, plans" and Ivins' psychiatrist, Dr. David S, Irwin called him "homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions."

In 2001, USAMRIID was incredibly lax in many areas of security. FBI records show that everyone at USAMRIID knew that security was lax. The military people were constantly complaining about how lax the civilian scientists were. They even let Ivins work with dangerous pathogens alone and unsupervised in his BSL-3 lab at night and on weekends. Hopefully, new procedures will keep such mentally unstable people away from dangerous pathogens.

"I don't know about you, but to me, sociopaths stand out as clearly as if they are wearing signs. I cannot tolerate being around them."

They give me the creeps, too. But, you usually have to get them talking about other people or one of their obsessions before you can tell that they're sociopaths.

"Who was this Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, and since she was in New York, how could she know a fellow (one of many) at Ft. Detrick, or have a clue as to what kind of work he was doing for his fellowship? That whole explanation sounds fishy to me. He wasn't fingered by Rosenberg."

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg was a science adviser to President Clinton. She was a bioterrorism expert for the Federation of American Scientists. She's also an activist opposed to U.S. Government work on bioweapons. She attended Biological and Toxic Weapons Conventions in Geneva. At the one in July of 2001, she was enraged when the U.S. refused to allow outsider inspections of U.S. government labs. At the one in November of 2001 she was already pointing the finger at Hatfill (without naming him) and claiming that the U.S. government was behind the anthrax attacks.

She never met Dr. Hatfill. She only learned of him by contacting others in a search for the person at Ft. Detrick who would most likely be a rogue scientist or a CIA operative helping the government to cover up some illegal bioweapons manufacturing facility. In one newspaper interview, she described how Hatfill's name came up. As I recall, it was during an exchange of emails with other people she knew.

Rosenberg's activities are documented, step by step, as she campaigned for eight monthsto get Dr. Hatfill investigated by the FBI. Click HERE for the timeline of her campaign, showing all the newspaper articles describing here campaign. Click HERE for a detailed description of her campaign using the Federation of American Scientists' web site to express her beliefs.

I've talked 5 times on the phone with Dr. Hatfill. And I've communicated many time with his lawyer. If the newspaper articles and FAS postings aren't enough, you can also look at the court records in Hatfill's lawsuit against the New York Times. Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times helped Rosenberg by writing columns pointing the finger at Hatfill.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

73 posted on 12/02/2010 7:21:54 AM PST by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe; Gondring
"One of those labs that was thought to have this strain was Iowa State University."

The only people who thought ISU had the strain are misinformed people in the media.

I've researched the entire ISU fiasco, and it appears that some reporter at NBC made a mistake. It appears that the reporter contacted USAMRIID to find out where the Ames strain came from, and USAMRIID told them it came from the USDA in Ames, Iowa. The reporter probably called the USDA and the USDA told them they never heard of the Ames strain.

There's no way to be sure exactly what happened next, but on Wednesday, October 10, 2001, Tom Brokaw reported on NBC's Nightly News that the Ames strain came from The Department of Energy's lab in Ames, Iowa. Not the USDA's lab, the DOE's lab.

The DOE's lab is run by Iowa State University. And that same evening and the next day (October 11), hundreds of reporters descended upon and called people at ISU to learn more about the source of the Ames strain.

The people at ISU didn't know anything about any Ames strain, but since so many reporters seemed to believe it came from ISU, people started speculating that it may have been something from the 1950's. And, it all just became more preposterous from there.

My research is available on my web site by clicking HERE.

ISU never had the Ames strain. ISU was just a victim of a screwball mistake by the media.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

74 posted on 12/02/2010 7:38:06 AM PST by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
I had a conversation with a vet who was involved in the procurement of the original sample. He referred me to a William Broad article of January 30, 2002. It has been reprinted in various locations.

He said that was about as close to the truth that was published.

Also the researcher at USAMRIID who received the sample had kept the wrapping label in the filing cabinet. It had an Ames, Iowa return address label and an Ames, Iowa postmark.

It is true, however, that USAMRIID, thought that the sample had originated in Ames or at least in Iowa. That was mistakenly reported down through the ages and that is why it is called Ames. When in reality I think it is genotype 62 according to Keim. There were other things inappropriately called Ames thought the years because Ames Iowa had a facility to test anthrax. That was the purpose of the whole building that I used to drive me on my way home. The truth is that the original sample came from Texas out of a Beefmaster heifer that died under the windmill. It was sent to College Station Texas diagnostic lab and from there was sent to Ames, Iowa. Now the question was, why did College Station send it to Ames, Iowa? It had already been diagnosed as anthrax and in those days anthrax was just anthrax. I am assuming here that the people who work on anthrax all sort of know each other and it was professional courtesy to give them a samplel of a new isolate for their COLLECTION.

75 posted on 12/02/2010 11:48:39 AM PST by Battle Axe (Repent, for the coming of the Lord is neigh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe
Battle Axe asked, "Now the question was, why did College Station send it to Ames, Iowa?

They never sent it to Ames, Iowa. They sent it ONLY to USAMRIID.

In late 1980, Dr. Gregory B. Knudson, a biologist working at the Army's biodefense laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md., was searching for new anthrax strains to use in tests of the military's vaccine. In December 1980, he wrote Texas A&M to see if they had any new anthrax strains. They didn't have anything at the time, but in early 1981, they received a sample of anthrax that had been extracted from a cow that had recently died. So, Texas A&M forwarded a portion of that sample to Ft. Detrick.

However, because Texas A&M frequently sent such samples to the USDA in Iowa, they had postage-paid labels from the USDA and they used one of the USDA labels, simply pasting the Ft. Detrick address over the USDA address. (It was evidently a way of saving a few dollars for Texas A&M.) And, when the sample arrived at Ft. Detrick, Dr. Knudson called it "The Ames Strain" because the mailing label indicated the sample had come from Ames, Iowa.

The Ames strain never went to Iowa - much less to ISU.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

76 posted on 12/02/2010 1:31:25 PM PST by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Ed Lake said:

“According to court records, Ivins had a “history dating to his graduate days of homicidal threats, actions, plans” and Ivins’ psychiatrist, Dr. David S, Irwin called him “homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions.”

-JEAN DULEY

The media has been characterizing Dr. Ivins as being a “homicidal sociopath”, yet every bad thing we’re hearing about the man is coming from only two sources: a “therapist” and a brother he hadn’t spoken to in more than 20 years.

Let’s start with the therapist, a woman with a long police record including multiple recent DUIs.
Look at the affidavit she filed. Let’s see what she says....”

http://www.hereinreality.com/anthrax/whoisjeanduley.html


77 posted on 12/02/2010 5:11:36 PM PST by Justice Department
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

“Until 1991, paraformaldehyde was also registered for control decontamination of laboratories and experimental animal facilities. However, all registrations for this use and many of the other uses described above were canceled due to nonpayment of registration maintenance fees by the manufacturer.

Subsequently, only two products remain registered. Since the laboratory use of paraformaldehyde has not been registered since 1991 and no alternatives are available, EPA has also issued several quarantine exemptions (and usually renews them every three years) to continue this use for specific federal agencies:

a.United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA) for use of paraformaldehyde in a poultry health laboratory in Arkansas;
b.U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) for laboratory decontamination; and
c.USDA to decontaminate high-containment microbiological laboratories at Plum Island, NY, and Ames, IA.”

And what kind of “scientist” are you exactly, if I may ask?


78 posted on 12/02/2010 5:25:19 PM PST by Justice Department
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; Battle Axe

“Until 1991, paraformaldehyde was also registered for control decontamination of laboratories and experimental animal facilities. However, all registrations for this use and many of the other uses described above were canceled due to nonpayment of registration maintenance fees by the manufacturer.

Subsequently, only two products remain registered. Since the laboratory use of paraformaldehyde has not been registered since 1991 and no alternatives are available, EPA has also issued several quarantine exemptions (and usually renews them every three years) to continue this use for specific federal agencies:

a.United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA) for use of paraformaldehyde in a poultry health laboratory in Arkansas;
b.U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) for laboratory decontamination; and
c.USDA to decontaminate high-containment microbiological laboratories at Plum Island, NY, and Ames, IA.”

And what kind of “scientist” are you exactly, if I may ask?


79 posted on 12/02/2010 5:26:16 PM PST by Justice Department
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; Battle Axe
Please keep in mind that Ed Lake is the web's ultimate authority on the anthrax case.


80 posted on 12/02/2010 5:31:15 PM PST by Justice Department
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

81 posted on 12/02/2010 5:37:32 PM PST by Justice Department
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121799265899216039.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


82 posted on 12/02/2010 5:39:55 PM PST by Justice Department
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Justice Department
This info throws a small monkey wrench into my scenario. If the manufacturer was the instigator of the application for the section 18 and not the failure of two consecutive split tests, then I have trouble with the failure which I felt was caused by the theft which left some contamination.

However, just how many of these labs are there and there are only 4 applications. An application leaves a footprint and this can be traced for various reasons.

One of my contacts asked....why didn't they just go to the chemical dept and get some paraformaldehyde and use it. Why do the application?

So there is a reason, if you put the two split failures back on the list. In order to keep operating and satisfy the license people, you have to have this PLAN OF ACTION. I could not remember that name last night. It is a written proposal that has to be approved of what are you going to do about this.

In order to use the paraformaldehyde in the plan of action, there had to be a section 18. So I feel they were forced to do it up front. I did get a FOIA and the application is signed by Dr. Carl Bausch and the target organism is listed as “ a dreaded disease of both livestock and man”. I can't think of a better phrase to use for anthrax without saying anthrax.

If it wasn't for anthrax then what was it for? And this is listed on the anthrax cleanup page.

If we had a really good reporter on staff we would assign the part about the chicken processing place to him and get him to tie it to a guy named Olson who died in Oklahoma covered with spots after he apparently survived a terrible lung infection.

I'm an entomologist, honey bee specially.

83 posted on 12/02/2010 5:44:47 PM PST by Battle Axe (Repent, for the coming of the Lord is neigh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe

http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/category/questioning-the-fbis-anthrax-investigation/page/16/


84 posted on 12/02/2010 5:54:10 PM PST by Justice Department
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
I'll try to answer your questions.

Put yourself in their shoes. They want to steal it but the know stealing is wrong. So they don't want to get caught with it on their person. Hey....what are you doing with that.

So they mailed it out of the building to a local address and another Pakistani student from the same hometown as the one that took it from the storage place. But he was nervous and he transposed 116 to 161. The Post Office delivered it to 161 which was occupied by this woman who sat across the table from me in class. She opened it and this resulted in an infection on her arm.

Then she touched her husband and he got one on his face. You have to have a break in the skin to come down with this. Men who are clean shaven will get it on their faces and necks, women on the inside of the forearm. Probably because they have so much work to do and loads of stuff to carry.

Ahemmmmm..

The other Pak was majoring in Vet Micro and would have had access to it. That was the one that stole it. Then he mailed it out to his comrade from the same home town, but who was majoring in Agronomy.

This building was on the north side of some railroad tracks and if you were on the south side of it and looked off to the north east, there was a large housing development. I thought at the time that it was not isolated enough.

85 posted on 12/02/2010 5:56:25 PM PST by Battle Axe (Repent, for the coming of the Lord is neigh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
They even let Ivins work with dangerous pathogens alone and unsupervised in his BSL-3 lab at night and on weekends.

For safety reasons, they didn't like anyone working alone in a lab, especially where dangerous agents are concerned. OTOH, people eager to get experimental results tend to ignore those safety rules because of the difficulty in getting someone to come in and just sit around the lab while they're working odd hours; the compromise is that people entering the facility at odd hours have to sign in and let security know where they expect to be, so that security can check up on them. IOW, there was nothing unusual about Ivins working alone or at odd hours. By that criteria, you'd better be seeing a judge to get an arrest warrant for exDemMom, because she clearly is a criminal, having done exactly the same thing. Science is not a 9-5 job.

As I have said before, I am highly skeptical about the "evidence" against Ivins. Much of it, like his working hours, applies to any scientist. Statements about his mental status, even those entered in the court records, are likely to be self-serving testimony offered by people with their own agenda. A scapegoat was needed, and he's a perfect one now that he can't defend himself.

I never met Hatfill. But there's only one degree of separation between him and me.

But, you usually have to get them talking about other people or one of their obsessions before you can tell that they're sociopaths.

They don't need to talk about obsessions (OCD is a different condition anyway) for me to pick up on their psychopathy. Even when they learn to act normal, and they seem normal on the surface, I pick up on it. They are the most dangerous when they realize that they can't manipulate you because you know them for what they are...

86 posted on 12/02/2010 5:59:23 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Since you know how lab timelines operated I'll ask you.

Let's say a scientist needs to read a set of plates and it will take 20 minutes, but they come due to read at 10 p.m. on Sat. night.

Some ninny plated them. Knowing well that they would have to be read at this time.

How much time would be recorded:

a. the 20 minutes
b. a minimum of 2 hours of work time as per union rules
c. other

87 posted on 12/02/2010 6:06:32 PM PST by Battle Axe (Repent, for the coming of the Lord is neigh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Justice Department

Thanks for the link.

It’s amazing how high profile cases will bring nuts out of the woodwork.


88 posted on 12/02/2010 6:51:09 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe

I think the time recorded would include the prep and clean up times. In any case, the times when the scientist badged in and then out would also be on record.

I don’t know about union rules regarding the minimum time to put on the time card. If they’re filling out a time card like the one I fill out, they would only be putting down the number of hours worked, not when they were worked.

I saw above that you’re a honeybee scientist. So, what’s the latest on the bee sudden death syndrome?


89 posted on 12/02/2010 7:09:11 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Justice Department

Not sure what the point was on your post.

I asked how many grams were listed. You replied with info I have already demonstrated knowledge of. ???

I am not an expert in this field and don’t claim to be. I’ve worked with FIFRA, but with agricultural compounds, and the publications peripherally with this topic had to do with supporting some toxicity research nearly 3 decades ago. The lab work I’ve done has been in chemical or physical labs, not biological.


90 posted on 12/03/2010 12:04:31 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Battle Axe
I saw above that you’re a honeybee scientist. So, what’s the latest on the bee sudden death syndrome?

You might find these interesting...

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/science/07bees.html
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013181

And I also would be curious on any updates from those that Battle Axe might know of.

91 posted on 12/03/2010 12:10:38 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Thanks, that’s very interesting.


92 posted on 12/03/2010 5:37:00 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
exDemMom wrote: "IOW, there was nothing unusual about Ivins working alone or at odd hours."

Oh? Here's the chart of Ivins' overtime hours:

It looks to me like Ivins overtime hours were unusual, and they happened at exactly the time that the anthrax mailer would have been working on the attack anthrax.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

93 posted on 12/03/2010 6:57:37 AM PST by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Justice Department
You are distorting the facts. The official record says:

"Ivins’ psychiatrist, Dr. David S, Irwin called him “homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions.”

Duley was just a therapist. She couldn't make such a diagnosis. She just told the police about the diagnosis after Ivins told his therapy group that he planned to kill his co-workers at Ft. Detrick and go out in a "blaze of glory".

There are documents which say that one of Ivins' psychiatrists thought that Ivins should have been locked up years before the anthrax attacks.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

94 posted on 12/03/2010 7:06:39 AM PST by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

“The official record says: “

Show me.


95 posted on 12/03/2010 7:24:31 AM PST by Justice Department
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Justice Department
"Show me."

Click HERE.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

96 posted on 12/03/2010 8:56:11 AM PST by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Hearsay!


97 posted on 12/03/2010 2:27:09 PM PST by Justice Department
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
In the summer of 1991 I became terribly allergic to the stings. My boss when out with me on a routine inspection trip and he noticed that I was really swelling up. I thought nothing of it as it had happened gradually.

He asked me nicely to quit. Which I did. Since then I have developed more allergies to sheep, goats, deer and unwashed wool. The symptoms are anywhere from itchy eyes to full blown head to toe hives.

So I have really been out of it for some time.

When I was still inspecting, the Varroa mite and the tracheal mite were killing hives. Anything from China is a bad thing and they were importing a lot of honey back then.

If I were to guess, I would look at a variant of chalk-brood. There were two forms, a black one and a white one. American Foul Brood (Bacillus larvae) took its toll too. I had hives and lost many for apparently no reason.

98 posted on 12/03/2010 7:59:37 PM PST by Battle Axe (Repent, for the coming of the Lord is neigh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

I called the EPA number on my FOIA and got the huge run around. They actually did call me back twice with other numbers to try. The name has not come to me yet of the old contact, but I have 54,000 grams stuck in my head.

One more place to look.


99 posted on 12/03/2010 8:03:42 PM PST by Battle Axe (Repent, for the coming of the Lord is neigh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Battle Axe
You had said

And that they had used over 110 pounds of the stuff that is supposed to be reported in grams.

I guess I'm getting confused about the "supposed to be reported in grams"... I'm missing your point...are you implying that because it was to be reported in grams, 50,000 grams was excessive? I thought perhaps you were saying it was in solution or a conversion was wrong or something.

You'd also asked about why they didn't just get some from the chem labs and use it. Well, maybe they wanted to comply with the regulations...? Is that something so hard to believe or am I missing something?

100 posted on 12/03/2010 8:18:52 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-130 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