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.”
I am not sure what your expert #184 is saying here.
Is he saying that Bacillus subtilis was found in Ivin’s possession?
If not, what is the point?
Re-reading #184 once again
it reads like a non-commital masterpiece.
Mainly he seems to be saying
Ivins himself did not use a BL4 lab.
Well, we knew that already, didn’t we?
Then he says it was curious
that Bacillus Subtilis was used
but does not say that Ivins used it.
Finally he washes his hands
of the whole mess
and leaves it up to you to decide
if Ivins did it.