Replies

I didn’t think the LA Times article added anything, except perhaps to highlight that someone at Ft. Detrick is pointing at him based on working late etc.

Allan,

A number of experts have responded to the question I forwarded. Here is the first email I’ve opened. I don’t want to be naming distinguished microbiologists in this context. But this is what he says which is persuasive because of its factual content:

“It is a matter of record that Dugway produced spore powders prior to the 2001 anthrax attack. This work was performed at or below BSL-3. (Dugway did not possess a BSL-4 facility.)

It is a matter of record that Dugway produced spore powders following the 2001 anthrax attack, in an effort to “reverse engineer” the attack material and also for separate studies involving assessment of decontamination procedures. This work was performed at or below BSL-3. (Dugway did not possess a BSL-4 facility.)

It is a matter of record that the US, the UK, the USSR, Iraq and possibly others produced spore powders in the second half of the twentieth century. This work was performed at or below BSL-3. (Most bioweapons-production plants did not possess BSL-4 facilities. No ton-scale bioweapons-production plant operated as a BSL-4 facility.)

Only a fool or knave would assert that the material could not be prepared at BSL-3..

P.S. With respect to the differences between BSL-3 and BSL-4, the differences are summarized at: http://www.cdc.gov/OD/ohs/biosfty/bmbl4/bmbl4s3.htm “

What it adds is not what you seek, but the playbook how the Feds are going to dodge and distract in future congressional inquiries. Innuendo about bleach, distraction from the fact that with the science of 2002 they had no idea whether it was likely the germs came from Ft. Detrick or any other place in the world, and that FT. Detrick was chosen in 2002 not on the basis of science, but on the obsession of placing Hatfill on the scene.

Dedicated FR thread here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2062109/posts

The fellow I consider the top expert on this issue in the country says this:

“If you look at the record, you will see that he did not spend time in the BSL-4 suite before Oct 2001 and if he did he would have had to use a full “moon suit”. BSL-4 is for agents for which there is no vaccination or treatment (anthrax is a BSL-2 to 3 agent, the latter for dry spores). All his work was in a BSL-3 or lower because at times he and his colleagues used inadequate precautions that allowed anthrax spores to spread to the men’s locker room and his office. At times his people didn’t even use gloves in the micro lab he worked in until he warned them about the widespread spore contamination. So I suspect that most of his work was done in a BSL-2 with biosafety cabinets for that level or the BSL-3 facility used at the BSL-2 level (a common practice). Finally, the FBI and others are well aware that a lyophilizer, or freeze drier, was not ,and could not, have been used to make the agent used in the letters. Due to the materials electrostatics it would have been impossible to load the letters because the anthrax powder would have flown out of the letters because of mutual electrostatic repulsion, preventing loading. It had to be loaded wet with a solvent that evaporated leaving such powder behind in the seal envelope after mailing. BSL-4 labs at the time were at USAMRIID, Southwest Institute for Biomedical Research in San Antonio Texas, and at CDC (but I don’t think it was active at the time, not sure) and there may be one in Canada. None of these would be required for the “work”. Have you read the Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant 07-524-M-01? You should. You will notice that the Amerithrax was contaminated with Bacillus subtilis, sometimes known as Bacillus niger, a common simulant for anthrax and used for many years at Dugway Proving Ground as an Army outdoor safe releaseable simulant. Curious it was used here. It would have never been used in the type of biomedical research that Dr Ivins did and he was too careful an investigator to have made such a preparation knowingly. He always prepared spores in liquid, buffered saline, for precise animal doses. Such a prep is not the type of material loaded in the letters. He was apparently amazed in front of his colleagues when he saw the physical behavior of the Amerithrax powder. A deception? I leave that conclusion to you.”