Selling the threat of bioterrorism (LA Times investigates Alibek)

LA Times ^ | 7/1/07 | David Willman

[ZacandPook]

As you know, I credit the AFIP’s finding that silica was detected.

But I also credit the report by Dr. Alibek and Dr.Meselson that silica was not seen on the SEMS that two professionals were shown. They certainly would not lie —as it is a criminal investigation and then when they were contradicted by other scientists (like Patrick) consulting for the FBI, they’d be in a predicament.

Moreover, beyond the face of that report, I find the backstory about the interviews conducted of the EDX operator (by a investigative/science reporter for major outlets) very compelling. In short, I believe he was highly qualified at detecting silica using an EDX. The AFIP has never taken back the claim.

But, I would ask again that you go on record, as a trained chemist, as to your view as to whether the patents are consistent with a finding of silica by EDX and the high concentration evidenced by the Daschle product.

I’m not asking you agree with me. I’m just looking to establish for the record your view so as to advance discussion.

The same-old “there was coating”/”there was not” debate that has been repeated endlesslyl for 5 years is not interesting. Let’s move forward.

Moreover your ad hominem attack on Ed was really lame. Let him continue with drawing a Sponge Bob figure with the Goldman Sachs letters and instead I want one or both of you to get me an expert opinion on the patents by someone qualified to render one.

Ideally, Ken himself.

[EdLake]

Of course, you know better than the rest of the world.

The "rest of the world" is not just a few people who repeat nonsense they read in the media. It's a much bigger world than that.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[ZacandPook]

Do me a favor, TR, and ask Richard Spertzel. He’s expert.

And someone who knows him should ask Steve Morse.

I asked Dr. Meselson but he didn’t respond.

Given that the patent by the guy who inherited Al-Timimi’s number involves removing the silica to permit greater concentration (avoid the weight etc.), I have no idea why Ed thinks it is probative it could not be seen.

If a current GMU grad student is following the issue, perhaps they could ask Victor M. Dr. Bailey too.

Dr. Bailey lawyered up when I just asked for Timimi’s room number.

[TrebleRebel]

I agree that the microdroplet patent is dual use. However, I don’t agree that removing the silica afterwards is useful for creating an aerosol. Silica is needed to make spores that will aerosolize. All that is needed is a single monolayer of highly dispersed silica. By highly dispersed I mean the silica itself is not clumped up as it is in some of the simulants we have seem. No doubt that’s what Alibek and Mesleson were looking for - and it’s obvious when the silica is not well dispersed. However, with state-of-the-art processing the single monolayer is difficult to see at lower SEM magnifications. But it’s easy to see under high resolution and easy to see with a combination of EDX spectra and EDX images of Si and O2 combined with regular SEM images.
I trust AFIP. They are experts at SEM images and the aforementioned EDX images.

[ZacandPook]

I believe Debra gives the example of the faulty intelligence analysis that results, for example, when someone doesn’t realize that the biological agent can be grown in a simple mineral culture medium. (Perhaps her example related to glanders).

[TrebleRebel]

Ah yes, the grand conspiracy theory. All these government sources lied and misled the media on seeing coatings. And the FBI published a paper citing, as evidence there were no coatings, an article that said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Fortunately most people have now worked that out.

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.

[ZacandPook]

Debra asks that I note something for her —

“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”.

She was referring to resin, not silica.

I’m the only one allowed to unintentionally distort her views.

BTW, although I haven’t asked her specifically, I’m sure she thinks US-based supporters of Al Qaeda were responsible for the anthrax mailings and she thinks Ed’s view that the FACTS establish a First Grader wrote the letter is really silly.

[ZacandPook]

Debra asks that I note something for her —

“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”.

She was referring to resin, not silica.

I’m the only one allowed to unintentionally distort her views.

BTW, although I haven’t asked her specifically, I’m sure she thinks US-based supporters of Al Qaeda were responsible for the anthrax mailings and she thinks Ed’s view that the FACTS establish a First Grader wrote the letter is really silly.

[ZacandPook]

So Ed wrote:

” there’s every reason to believe the attack spores were created using standard techniques — perhaps with a few tricks from the pesticide industry.”

Indeed. That’s precisely what Ken explains in his patent:

” cell culture method that substantially increases the yield of products produced from ... for example, ...biopesticides ...”

It all goes to illustrate Ken’s point that a sophisticated (highly concentrated product consisting of “pure spores”) can result from a relatively simple process.

Ed doesn’t get Ken or Matthew M. to say the method of the patent is not indicated for a reason. I’ve asked them both this precise question. Victor too.

[TrebleRebel]

It despends on what you mean by coating with resin. Obviously a total encapsulation with an epoxy resin coating will do little to prevent clumping - and would likely ensure that the spores could never germinate.

The spores need to be coated with preferably a monolayer of silica nanoparticles. This can be done with or without a chemical binder. Without a chemical binder the silica nanoparticles stick to the surafce of the spores with van der Waals forces. If handled roughly, the bulk powder may lose some of the coating. However, if a chemical binder is used the silica nanoparticle swill stick with much stronger chemical bonds. An ideal chemical binder is a siloxane resin. Sush a resin has a silcon containg end that will bind to the silca, and the other end is an epoxy group that will bind to the organic surface of the spore. Using a binder like this will provide a much more robust silica coating - and the spore will still be able to germinate.

[Calpernia]

Alibek, ping

[EdLake]

Ah yes, the grand conspiracy theory. All these government sources lied and misled the media on seeing coatings.

Actually, it's the other way around. It's you with "the grand conspiracy theory." It's the media which misled the government agencies. You always get things backwards.

Let's summarize:

Here's what coated spores look like:

You believe that because anthrax experts such as Meselson and Alibek have stated that they saw no coatings on the spores they must either be lying or incompetent. Is that correct?

On the other hand, you cannot name a single person who has stated for the record that they saw coatings on the spores. But you believe such people exist because you believe that van der Waals forces require that the spores be coated to keep them from binding together. Is that correct?

You believe that spores will bind together the same way as particles of lactose will bind together, and it doesn't make any difference to you that lactose is comprised totally of polar molecules which would naturally bind together. Is that correct?

It doesn't matter to you that the anthrax disease was discovered because spores were floating freely around and killing people in wool sorting factories during the Industrial Revolution. Is this also part of some "big lie" to you? How long has this "big lie" been going on?

And the fact that anthrax bacteria create spores in a process called "sporulation" which ends with a process called "lysing" where the spores are released from the dead mother germ to float away in any breeze means nothing to you. It doesn't matter to you that, if your beliefs about van der Waals forces were true, spores could not exist. In fact, if your beliefs about van der Waals forces were true, the universe as we know it could not exist because everything in the universe would have to be bound together in one big ball. Is that correct?

You cannot provide any science to show that spores require a coating, but instead you rely on media articles and other articles based upon second-hand and third-hand knowledge and/or mistaken beliefs about the attack spores. Is that correct?

Douglas Beecher of the FBI's labs at Quantico wrote in his article in Applied and Environmental Microbiology on page 5309:

Purification of spores may exacerbate their dissemination to some extent by removing adhesive contaminants and maximizing spore concentration. However, even in a crude state, dried microbial agents have been long considered especially hazardous. Experiments mimicking laboratory accidents have demonstrated that simply breaking vials of lyophilized bacterial cultures creates concentrated and persistent aerosols.

Do you consider this a lie?

Doug Beecher also wrote this:

...even if most of a spore powder is bound in relatively few large particles, some fraction is composed of particles that are precisely in the size range that is most hazardous for transmission of disease by inhalation.

Do you consider this a lie? Or do you believe Doug Beecher is incompetent?

Doug Beecher also wrote this on page 5309:

Individuals familiar with the compositions of the powders in the letters have indicated that they were comprised simply of spores purified to different extents. However, a widely circulated misconception is that the spores were produced using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to military weapon production. This idea is usually the basis for implying that the powders were inordinately dangerous compared to spores alone. The persistent credence given to this impression fosters erroneous preconceptions, which may misguide research and preparedness efforts and generally detract from the magnitude of hazards posed by simple spore preparations.

If I understand you correctly, you believe this is all lies and says just the opposite of what it says. Is that correct?

Are you sure you don't believe in some "grand conspiracy" where the FBI is out to disprove your ridiculous beliefs?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[nw_arizona_granny]

Thanks for the ping.........

[EdLake]

she thinks Ed’s view that the FACTS establish a First Grader wrote the letter is really silly.

Don't we have to assume that she thinks this without having looked at the facts?

I'm signing off for today. My hours are 9-5. I'll be back tomorrow.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

Er, Beecher, supposedly at the “center of the investigation”, uses the Science article as his ONLY source there were no additives. The Science article says there WERE additives. Beecher, I believe, was duped into adding this sentence by his reviewer, Meselson, who we all know has an agenda.

This fact has been noticed by many others.

http://www.bepast.org/docs/washington%20newsletter/17%20October%202006%5B1%5D.htm
The August 2006 by Beecher provides great detail on the forensic examination of the letter to Senator Leahy, including the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) contamination while personnel were investigating the Leahy letter (Table 1, page 5307), and the anthrax contamination studies of 20 letters also postmarked October 9, 2001 in Trenton, New Jersey close in time to the “Daschle and Leahy letters” (Table 2). Of note, however, no new data is provided in the “Results” section of the paper regarding the presence or absence of any additives to the anthrax spores in the letter.
In the “Discussion” section of the paper (page 5309) however, Mr. Beecher states that ”Individuals familiar with the composition of the powders in the letters have indicated that they were comprised simply of spores purified to different extents (6)”. This single reference # 6 is from an article titled “Anthrax powder: State of the Art?” published 28 November 2003 in Science (volume 302, pages 1492-1497) by Gary Matsumoto, described at the end of the five-page article as an investigative journalist.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/09/abc_anthrax/view/index8.html
Beecher’s article is very oddly sourced, his reference to the scientists familiar with the sample who say it was just spores is to Gary Matsumoto’s article in Science, which discusses the controversy, and pretty much sides with the pro-silica people.
It does so because government scientists from the Army who know how to weaponize anthrax to the state of the art were asked by the FBI to do so attempting to replicate a guy with lots of knowledge working in the basement, and failed — because of clumping characteristics unlike the samples from the letters. Gary Matsumoto is double cited by Beecher in the part you quote, he is reference (6).

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8449gov1.html

This is the FBI’s first public statement on the investigation since it began analyzing the material in the Leahy letter and the first time the bureau has described the anthrax powder. Beecher, however, provides no citation for the statement or any information in the article to back it up, and FBI spokeswomen have declined requests to interview him.
“The statement should have had a reference,” says L. Nicholas Ornston, editor-in-chief of the microbiology journal. “An unsupported sentence being cited as fact is uncomfortable to me. Any statement in a scientific article should be supported by a reference or by documentation,” he says.

---

[Biodefense student]

Hey TR,
What I meant by “coating with resin” in the original post was in reference to how it was phrased in the document to which you directed my attention. What they said in that original article was incorrect.

It should be obvious why I won’t go into detail on this topic but lets try it this way:

Yes, there were three main components in the Stepnogorsk anthrax formulation...I won’t identify them. We were only told about them during a discussion on the complexities of making a biological weapon so that we would understand how to evaluate someone else’s work and the level of threat their weapon posed. Even with this level of knowledge, we would not be able to reproduce the work as Dr. Alibek never gave us more than what we needed. “He was training biodefense experts, not bioterrorists” was a phrase that circulated around the students.

Aside from the fact that one could not just mix these three ingredients as one so chose and mix them at a time as one so chose, I’ll offer this last comment. None of the three primary ingredients was used to help anything stick to anything. The issues were completely different.

Next time I have a chemistry question, though, I’m asking you!

I’m trying to get geocities to help me with a website so that I can upload my dissertation for the public but am having problems with the page builder. I’ll let everyone know when I have the technical difficulties conquered. My new email address is Anderson51704@yahoo.com.

[Biodefense student]

I’m sure he was just playfully teasing TR. :)

[ZacandPook]

Debra,

Can you ask Ken whether this patent below is consistent with: (1) the high concentration of the Daschel product, (2) the EDX finding reported by AFIP in its newsletter, and (3) Ken and Dr. M’s observation of the SEMS (when they did not see a silica coating), taking into account the related patent describing how the silica can be removed from the surface using repeated centrifugation? The related patent involving the removal of the silica from the surface so as to reduce weight / increase purity was invented by the guy who had Al-Timimi’s telephone number.

TrebleRebel, can you ask Dr. Spertzel?

EdLake, can you ask Dr. Meselson?

There are others who are equally knowledgeable about microbiology and would welcome their view also. I’d like to understand, even, the basic words he uses — such as his reference to COATING and COATING VESSEL etc.

United States Patent
6,649,408
Bailey , et al.
November 18, 2003

Microdroplet cell culture technique

Abstract
The present invention comprises a novel culture method and device in which living cells are cultured in a plurality of individual microdroplets that are immobilized and isolated within a matrix of hydrophobic particles. The hydrophobic particles adhere to inoculated microdroplets of media, isolating the microdroplets in an aseptic microenvironmet. The plurality of individual microdroplets provide and optimal environment for the concentrated growth of cultured cells contained therein.

Inventors:
Bailey; Charles L. (Fayetteville, TN), Alibek; Ken (Alexandria, VA)
Assignee:
George Mason University (Fairfax, VA)
Appl. No.:
09/805,464
Filed:
March 14, 2001

***
DESCRIPTION

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/191,771, filed Mar. 24, 2000.

Claims

Having thus described our invention, what we claim as new and desire to secure by Letters Patent is as follows:

1. A cell culture method comprising the steps of: introducing liquid media inoculated with cells to be cultured into a vessel; converting the inoculated liquid media into individual microdroplets; introducing a sufficient quantity of hydrophobic particles in the form of a dry powder into the vessel to coat the individual microdroplets; and growing the cells within the individual microdroplets.

2. The cell culture method of claim 1 further comprising the step of recovering the cultured cells from the individual microdroplets.

3. The cell culture method of claim 1 wherein the converting step comprises: adding ferromagnetic particles to the vessel; applying an electromagnetic field within the vessel, thereby causing the random circulation of the ferromagnetic particles throughout the vessel.

...
6. The process of claim 1 wherein the cells are bacterial cells.

...
9. The process of claim 1 wherein the hydrophobic particles are silicon dioxide particles.
...

Description

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention generally relates to the cultivation and growth of cells on laboratory, pilot plant, or industrial scales and, more particularly, to the cultivation and growth of cells in a plurality of individual microdroplets of liquid media which are interspersed within a matrix of hydrophobic microparticles.

2. Background Description
***
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
***
In one embodiment of the invention, the inoculated media is converted into microdroplets prior to introduction into the COATING vessel. Such a process is enabled by introducing the inoculated media via a spray nozzle that dispenses individual microdroplets into the vessel. It is not essential to the practice of the invention that the microdroplets be created prior to the introduction of the droplets into the COATING vessel. Thus, in yet another embodiment, the microdroplets are created after the inoculated liquid media is introduced into the COATING vessel. Ferromagnetic particles are sterilized and introduced into a non-magnetic mixing/COATING vessel. Electromagnetic inductors are mounted in parallel on either side of the COATING vessel. Activation of the electromagnetic inductors causes an electromagnetic field to exist within the vessel. Oscillations of this electromagnetic field are induced by the inductors. The ferromagnetic particles orient along and follow the field lines of the electromagnetic field and follow the oscillations of the field. The rapid motion of the field and particles vigorously mixes the hydrophobic particles and liquid media, inducing the formation of droplets.

The size of the microdroplets will vary, with an optimum size for the cultivation of microorganisms, for example, usually being between 0.5 and 2.0 mm in diameter. Sizes within this range have been found to result in high concentrations of microorganisms per microdroplet. It should readily be understood by one skilled in the art, however, that the optimal size of microdroplet will vary, depending on such factors as the growth rate of the cultured cell type, the amount of optimal aeration for a given cell type, the most effective cell density for production of a given metabolite, and the like.

The size of individual microdroplets can be regulated by adjusting such factors as the size of the nozzle or portal delivering the liquid or aerosolized media, the volume of the vessel, the speed at which the various components are added, the power and frequency of electromagnetic induction (in one embodiment of the invention), and the type of hydrophobic particle utilized, for example.

In one particular embodiment of the invention, the vessel is contained in a refrigerated environment to prevent the rapid random motion of the electromagnetic process from destroying the inoculated microdroplets with excessive heat.

Once the microdroplets of inoculated media have formed, the hydrophobic particles can then intercalate between and around individual microdroplets, creating a semi-liquid slurry comprising a matrix of interspersed microdroplets of inoculated culture and hydrophobic particles. In one embodiment of the invention, the particles are pumped into the COATING vessel while the ferromagnetic particles and liquid media are agitated, resulting in the simultaneous agitation and mixing of the hydrophobic particles along with the microdroplets. In another embodiment, the hydrophobic particles are introduced through a second opening positioned such that the particles encounter the aerosolized microdroplets of inoculated media as the droplets enter the vessel.

The hydrophobic particles can be introduced into the vessel by a variety of methods well known within the art, for example, by forced flow with the assistance of an air pump. Introduction of the COATING particles can be through the same opening used for the introduction of the inoculated media or through a second opening. The use of two different openings for the media and COATING particle introduction may have the advantage of allowing for easier process controls.

In one embodiment of the invention, the hydrophobic particles comprises a powder of silicon dioxide....

In a particularly preferred embodiment, the silicon dioxide particles are Aerosil 300, produced by Brenntag N.V. of Belgium. In another preferred embodiment, the silicon dioxide particles are selected from the group comprising the AEROSIL series of powders manufactured by the Degussa-huls Corporation (i.e., AEROSIL R 104, AEROSIL R 106, AEROSIL R 202, AEROSIL R 805, AEROSIL R 812, AEROSIL R812.S, AEROSIL R 972, AEROSIL R 974, and AEROSIL R.8200). Other silicon dioxide particles are contemplated and within the scope of the invention. The choice of silicon dioxide particles will vary depending on the organism to be cultured and the amount of aeration required. In general, silicon dioxide particles that are useful in the practice of the present invention will be hydrophobic and have a surface area between 50 and 380 meters.sup.2 per gram of weight.

It is contemplated within the practice of the invention that the percent composition of COATING particles to inoculated medium will vary, depending on, but not limited to, such factors as the cell type, the size of the individual microdroplets, and the desired final density and phase of growth that is the objective of the particular culture. In one embodiment of the invention that the ratio of individual COATING particles to cultured inoculum may be within a range of 99:1 and 1:99. In one preferred embodiment of the invention, the ratio individual COATING particles to cell inoculum to will be within a range of 1:2 to 2:1.

Once the microdroplets are formed and COATED, they are evacuated from the COATING vessel through narrow slotted openings at the bottom of the vessel. In one particular preferred embodiment, the slotted openings will be between 1.5-2.0 mm wide but may vary depending on the size of the microdroplets formed. The microdroplets can be as little as 10 to 20 microns, so long as the initial inoculum is dense enough to ensure each microdroplet contains inoculated medium. The microdroplets can be much larger, with diameters greater than 2.5 mm, so long as the hydrophobic particles are able to maintain the media in individual droplet form. Accordingly, the slots for removal can also be designed to be the same as whatever size the microdroplets are or slightly larger.

In most cases, the space between the COATED microdroplets provides adequate aeration of the cell culture. It is a particularly useful and beneficial feature of the present invention that the space which exists between individual COATED microdroplets provides an optimum environment for the concentrated growth of cell cultures. The adequate aeration provided with the present invention allows the growing cultures to make optimal use of the liquid media contained within each microdroplet.

It can readily be seen by one skilled in the relevant art, however, that various means can be employed to provide the growing microdroplet culture with supplemental oxygen and/or other gases to optimize the aeration conditions for a given cell culture. For example, a fermentation vessel or zone may be provided with a port opening onto the vessel or zone through which exogenous molecular oxygen may be pumped via conduits and means to transport the gas. Additionally, the fermentation vessel or zone may further be equipped with a second port opening for removal of gases during the fermentation process.

In one embodiment of the invention, the cultured cells will be microorganisms. Fermentation of microorganisms can proceed via a batch process or a continuous fermentation process. In the case of batch fermentation, the microdroplets are collected and grown in a fermentation vessel. In a continuous fermentation process, the COATED microdroplets are collected from the slots at the bottom of the COATING vessel and are grown in long conduits that constitute a fermenting zone. The particular fermentation method used to culture the microdroplets is not critical to the practice of the present invention.

As can readily be appreciated by one skilled in the art, it will not always be necessary or preferable to separate the hydrophobic particles away from the liquid cell culture following cell growth. For example, since silicon dioxide is frequently utilized in soil treatment, there is no need to remove the silicon dioxide from cell cultures that are grown for the purposes of soil treatment. Furthermore, since the hydrophobic particles limit the potential for the spread of contamination, it may be desirable to maintain cultivated cells within the Individual hydrophobic microdroplets for storage purposes.

It is a particularly beneficial feature of a preferred embodiment of the present invention that the enhanced aeration of cultured cells, combined with the efficient removal of metabolites, allow for microbial cultures to divide to a density that consumes all of the available liquid present in a microdroplet. Thus, in a preferred embodiment of the invention there is no need to (1) concentrate cultures or (2) remove the hydrophobic particles from the microdroplet culture. When all of the liquid media is consumed, the hydrophobic particles disassociate from the cell cultures, allowing the cells to interact directly with the surrounding environment.

Alternatively, once cell growth is complete, the liquid media can be isolated away from the hydrophobic particles through a simple centrifugation step. As can readily be appreciated by one skilled in the art, the time and force of centrifugation will vary depending on the organism and hydrophobic particle employed in the process. The silicon dioxide particles can be sterilized and re-used in another microdroplet cultivation process.

***

[TrebleRebel]

I think you give way too much weight to this patent. In all liklihood this patent was never reduced to pratice - most patents these days aren’t - they are just thought experiments. I doubt this patent is too useful for anything to be honest.
The only reason you seem to think the patent is important is because of this Al-Timini guy. If Al-Timini made the senate anthrax I’m sure the FBI would have leaked this by now.

[ZacandPook]

I thank you for your take on it. But if you could, I’d ask you ask Dr. Richard Spertzel, given that we both credit his expertise in microbiology. I would but don’t know his email.

As for whether Ken has ever actually put it into practice, I’ve asked Debra to seek his insights and provide his input. Of course, his contribution would be highly authoritative.

As for the FBI’s Amerithrax investigation, my sense is that the investigation has been conducted very professionally since they plugged the leaks relating to the one squad’s interest in Dr. Hatfill. That was years ago and so it appears Mueller’s admonitions upon his upset over the leak concerning silica to the journalist of our acquaintance were effective.

As for the story on Amerithrax that did appear, the Washington Post, in an article “Hardball Tactics in an Era of Threats,” dated September 3, 2006 summarized events relating Ali Al-Timimi:

“To the government, they were a terrorist risk in the Washington area. To local Muslims, they were unfairly singled out for prosecution and severe sentences in a post-9/11 world.

‘In late 2002, the FBI’s Washington field office received two similar tips from local Muslims: Timimi was running ‘an Islamic group known as the Dar al-Arqam’ that had ‘conducted military-style training,’ FBI special agent John Wyman would later write in an affidavit.

Wyman and another agent, Wade Ammerman, ...

The agents reached an alarming conclusion: ‘Timimi is an Islamist supporter of Bin Laden’ who was leading a group ‘training for jihad,’ the agent wrote in the affidavit. The FBI even came to speculate that Timimi, a doctoral candidate pursuing cancer gene research, might have been involved in the anthrax attacks.

On a frigid day in February 2003, the FBI searched Timimi’s brick townhouse on Meadow Field Court, a cul-de-sac near Fair Oaks Mall in Fairfax. Among the items they were seeking, according to court testimony: material on weapons of mass destruction.”

How much plainer do you need a leak to be TrebleRebel? Nothing more than the warrant and his lawyer’s comments at the time should have been necessary. His own lawyer said they suspected him and then the govenrment saw fit to see him sentenced to life plus 70 years.

On February 26, 2003 at 6:00 EST, at the same moment they raided al-Timimi’s townhouse they searched the residences of two PhD level drying experts.

Mueller has said that the reason they have refused to brief Congress is to avoid the intimidation of witnesses and the flight of people under suspicion.

Of course, the fact that they suspect he accessed the know how is by no means evidence he did. Moreover, it may instead point to a monumental unfairness — where he was prosecuted on grossly inflated charges because of an incorrect suspicion concerning Amerithrax.

But if the government is involved in shadow boxing, the only way to get rid of the shadows is to turn on the lights. To fill in the factual gaps. What was his nature of the work for the Navy that required a high securitly clearance. Did ATCC have vrulent Ames in its patent repository? etc.

But for starters, please email Dick Spertzel and ask. It’s hardly an undue imposition on his time. I, of course, also credit your expertise, but am seeking an opinion now of a microbiologist.