[EdLake]

You LOBBIED them to change BOTH dates

I have every e-mail I ever exchanged with UCLA. So, tell me when I did this, and I'll check it out.

I do not recall ever mentioning Ernesto Blanco to UCLA. But I find it very amusing that you think I lobbied UCLA to change the date to agree with the CDC's date, when you argued in message #140 that "UCLA have NOTHING WHATSOVER to do with the official medical investigation" and that you use the CDC's date. You really are confused.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

I say the CDC date is September 24. That's when Blanco got sick. The Septemebr 24 date is CLEARLY the correct date. The September 28 is CLEARLY wrong. ALL the EVIDENCE points to the fact that September 24 is the date that Stevens got sick.

You say the CDC date is September 28, and you use the UCLA webpage to somehow justify that, when in fact it was you who persauded UCLA to write that.

I admit that the CDC do give September 28 in another paper, but this date is not helpful. We need to know the FIRST signs of symptoms, so we can understand when he was EXPOSED.

The FIRST signs of symptoms were September 24 - and that's why Blanco was infected by the September 19 letter.

It's really very simple - you are just deliberately trying to confuse things, because you can't handle the Septemebr 19 letter.

You really ought to look at ALL the FACTS.