Replies

Do a little arithmetic and you will see that his OFFICIAL onset date is September 24.

But hey, all these CDC doctors are wrong, and you are right - correct?

They may not all be wrong, but they apparently do not agree. And they change their minds from time to time. Many of the onset dates have been changed. You are evidently just looking at obsolete data.

Check this CDC page and you will see that they use the same onset date for Ernesto Blanco as I use - September 28. Here's the graph from that page:

Also check the CDC page HERE. where they very clearly say that Ernesto Blanco's onset date was the date I use: September 28. If you can't find it, it's in Table #1 and Blanco is Case #4.

Perhaps they changed their mind and decided that "fatigue" was not sufficient to be officially the onset of a disease. As I recall, they changed Bob Stevens onset date for that reason.

If you check the UCLA data for the onset date you will see that Stevens' attending physician gave an onset date of Sept. 28, but the CDC uses Sept. 30, which UCLA considers "most likely".

You really are getting tiresome with your snide remarks.

I've got better things to do than to argue with you. So, this is the end of this thread for me.

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

What's wrong Ed, running off again because you lost the debate again?

You asked me to provide you with my pre-September 25 onset date and I did. You now tell me this is "obselete" data.

So let me get this straight - all the CDC data I provide is obselete and all the UCLA data you provide (UCLA have NOTHING WHATSOVER to do with the official medical investigation) is "correct"? Have I got that right?

Facts mean very little to you, don't they?

And when you lose debates you simply whine about being personally attacked.

Why don't you just stick to writing your drivel on your website? Nobody can argue with you there. Here people will present FACTS to demonstrate that all your theories are TOTALLY bogus.

And apparently you can't handle that.

"Perhaps they changed their mind and decided that "fatigue" was not sufficient to be officially the onset of a disease."

The classic early symptoms of inhlational anthrax are fatigue for a few days, followed sometimes by a respite, but then the patient gets REALLY sick and has to be hospitalized.

ALL the EVIDENCE clearly points to the fact that Blanco was exposed to anthrax BEFORE the Septemebr 25 letter was opened. This is the conclsion of the CDC, and it a correct conclusion.

You have to twist this around because you desperately don't want the September 19 letter to be an anthrax letter.

Your whole screwball theory is perverted and twisted to demonstrate that Muslims could not possibly have sent the anthrax.

Most other people look at ALL the FACTS and draw INTELLIGENT conclusions based on these FACTS.

Ed, I just received a freepmail from someone I trust who has informed me that someone lobbied the guy who oversees the UCLA website, and that this person persuaded the UCLA webmaster to change Blanco's onset date to Sep 30.

I'm told that this person was you!

And yet you write above:
"....but the CDC uses Sept. 30, which UCLA considers "most likely"."

However, what you don't tell us is that it was YOU who "considers this date" "most likely".!!!!

How far are you willing to go to twist and pervert this entire investigation to suit your own needs???

You have now been caught in a gross act of misinformation - and not for the first time. You lobbied to get the date changed, and then you come on here and try to tell us that UCLA did this on their on volition! That is outrageous, and people really need to now question the ENTIRE content of you website. How many other pieces of misinformation are there - probably plenty!